208 thoughts on “My Official Statement About the Hugos”

    1. That brings us to the literary arsonist who started this entire conflagration: May, 2012 – John Scalzi and his dipshit white privilege post at Gawker’s Kotaku. Using the credibility of the SFWA presidency and on the sad pretext he wanted to make SFF more inclusive, he’s done more to destroy it’s institutions cohesiveness and its viability to produce art than any human being in 100 years of genre SFF in America. If you want to know why people aren’t even speaking to each other, there’s your Pearl Harbor of racial incitement and incitement to hate men. Keep trolling SFF Scalzi – there’s a few areas you haven’t burned down yet. Scalzi is the anti-Thomas Metcalf and Bob Davis.

  1. This year and every year hence will be the year of the asterisk (as the MC unsubtly pointed out). I wonder how many the Hugos can endure before they realize that they have destroyed their award?

  2. I see that their claim of not liking slate voting is false. Or didn’t they realize that voting “No Award” in a block is slate voting.

    1. As Vox himself is fond of pointing out: “SJWs always lie.”

      Also, standards are for other people. It’s always OK when *they* do it.

      *shrug* Time to start stocking up on popcorn and whiskey for SP4 . . . 😛

  3. Oh I also wonder if they realize that Vox has declared any wins by “No Award” is a win for him? Also do they realize how dumb the asterisks make them look?

    1. Beale has declared that any outcome whatever, or no outcome, is a win for him. Award, No Award, Award to somebody else, lightning striking the convention center, things with tentacles eating David Gerrold on stage, he’ll claim credit for it, or blame the Evil SJWs, or both.

  4. This has been a wild ride. The twitter celebrations over scuttling the awards last night were an interesting read this morning.

        1. Actually there was a decent amount of booing of the No Awards which is why those running things said that cheering was acceptable for it but not booing.

          1. If I’m understanding you correctly, people who booed the idea that it’s better for there to be no Hugo than for “those people” to get it were chastised by the organizers. At the same time, those who cheered that idea, were encouraged.

            Is that correct?

          2. Yes that is what happened. And the cheers were very loud. Louder than for many of the real winners.

          3. I believe Solomon is the traditional instructive tale for this scenario. Of course, there’s no king to arbitrate in this case, so it may not apply.

          4. Gerold absolutely chastised the booing of “No Award”, which should not have been any surprise in retrospect.

          5. There is a Supreme Dark Lord.

            He offered the Hugo voters the same choice that Solomon gave the two women. And the CHORFs gave the same answer.

          6. Except not really. They could have had the baby, because Brad was willing to put some of “their” candidates on the ballot. But then they would have had to vote for a Puppy nomination. They were more interested in kicking puppies no matter what happened to the baby.

            As it is, the winner for best novel was endorsed by Vox Day. Beforehand, so no revisionist history there.

  5. The final numbers actually turned out better than I expected. The best they could do after all that campaigning (including the slander, the libel, the buying votes for, um, “deserving but financially disadvantaged fans”) was a little over 50%. See the Editor – Long Form for the evidence.

    I feel bad for Butcher, though. Guess he’ll just have to console himself with the new steampunk novel that will debut at #1 on the NYT charts in a few weeks…

    1. Worldcon has moved the best series proposal to committee. I guess dealing with Puppy slating took all the air out of the room. Too bad. That would have been a natural for Butcher.

      1. You just don’t get it, do you? The SJWs have outed themselves as hypocrites of the first water, undeniably so, and evidently don’t even realize it. They dealt with a “slate” by creating a “No Award” slate of their own. The only people who don’t notice that are you leftists.

    2. I liked Butcher’s first few Harry Dresden novels. This one didn’t do it for me, though perhaps if I were caught up on the intervening dozen or so it would have, but if I’d been nominating Volume N>>10 of something, it would have been Hawk, the latest Jhereg novel. My guess from the nomination counts is that without the Puppy slates, Skin Game wouldn’t have made it on.

      (Last year I voted for Warbound fourth, ahead of Ancillary Justice; that might have been different if Orbit had provided the whole novel instead of an excerpt, which wasn’t enough to convince me, while I’ve read enough of Stross’s and McGuire/Grant’s work to get some clue about how good they were. I had to finish Correia’s trilogy and the Entire Flaming Wheel Of Time after the voting, but both were worth it.)

  6. Milo Yiannopolous:

    “Like the Death Star’s visit to Alderaan, the results of Hugo Awards voting were ugly and unprecedented. 5 major categories including best novella and best short story went with “no award”. To put that in perspective, in the previous 60 years of Hugo Awards, a total of 5 “no awards” have been given previously.”


    Victory! (They cried, to the screech of moving goalposts.)

    Also: “Worldcon is now designing a Byzantine new rule system designed to thwart a Puppies resurgence in 2016. But anyone who loves sci-fi knows that no matter how air-tight the bad guy’s rules seem, the good guys will find a way through. Does anyone really think SJWs can design anything without leaving an unguarded exhaust vent?”

    1. If they exclude supporting member votes in any way, they have $25k budget shortfall, and will have to find Motel 6 equivalent in Helsinki for Worldcon 2017.

    1. One of the main points of Sad Puppies 1 was that Larry in his Auditor hat suspected that they were engaged in dishonest measures to get their wins. With SP1 he determined that the process was honest but a small clique was coordinating to make the choices what they wanted.

      Sad Puppies 2 he tested to his satisfaction the nomination process and determined that it could be used to nominate books and people more to taste. At that point he was done with it and happily went off to write and count his cash from writing. 😉

      1. LOL @ Larry in his auditor hat. That’s pretty funny.

        @Wes there is no “Byzantine new rule system designed to thwart a Puppies resurgence in 2016.”

        True fans at the Business meeting passed both EPH and 4/6 but it doesn’t take effect till 2017. Fans wish to thank Auditor Larry and his merry band of pups along with Sarah, Brad and Vox for their continual threats and insults that insured the measures would pass. I personally liked James May bragging about keeping works of the ballet which was distributed.

        There was one puppy speaking at the Business Meeting who spoke in favor of EPH.

        You guys keep sending in the beer money. It is much appreciated by the fans and be assured your votes will count in 2017 in about the proportion as your numbers.

        Now next year? You can create havoc so enjoy that. It will be the last time. Can I get an AMEN for the last time of puppy havoc?

        Finally, let’s discuss the Puppies declaring victory. Hmmm. Scalzi said you guys would do that. But rather than quote Scalzi let’s turn to wisdom of pack leader, Auditor Larry who in his last fisking noted:

        From the Guardian: ” If the Puppies win, nobody wins.”

        From Auditor Larry: “No. The Puppies would win. That’s sort of what the word win means, dumbass. 🙂 ”

        To which we might add – And if the puppies lose they lose. That’s sort of what the word lose means…… Can I get an AMEN on “lose means lose”?

        1. There is no possible way any social justice warrior can claim this to be a victory for their side. The puppies premise was that the award was so biased that they would rather burn the award down and allow someone who’s politics did not agree with them to win. With this year there’s no possible way anyone can say that no award was the best. They snubbed two of the most powerful successful and influential women in the industry rather than let them get the award. And no one can possibly say it was based on anything the politics. It is utterly unsupportable that anyone can claim that list of editors was not the top of the game . This award has zero credibility left. It’s time for them to come out and admit that it is not an award for being the best in this genre but it’s award for conforming to a very narrow set of political agenda.

          1. Oh no. Not a victory. That was part of the debate. The fans were able to thwart crap on the ballet with “No Award” but it should not have been there to begin with. Pup yapping about all they got on the ballet and all they kept off are points well taken by the pups and contributed to passing EPH and 4/6. Thanks for that.

            The puppies lost. Fans didn’t win. The slating was successful. It put crap on the ballet that didn’t have broad support. But then during the vote – Puppies lost.

          2. What is this “ballet” you keep yammering about? Has Scalzi added pointe shoes to his Regency gown ensemble?

            “Puppies lost.”

            So did Scalzi (didn’t even make the “ballet”), Nielsen Hayden (ditto), Leckie, et al. And those people actually *care*.

            P.S. if you think that convoluted mess that your brain-trust has cooked up is immune to exploits, you’re in for a rude, rude awakening.

          3. Oh yes Doctor. No doubt. You kept lots of stuff off the ballot. And bragged about it. That was helpful.

            As to the “convoluted mess”, it isn’t very convoluted. You have one vote and one point. You can nominate one work (let’s say book) in which case you gave the book 1 point. You can nominate 5 books in with case you give each book 1/5th point. There is always a run off elimination with the Hugo balloting. Only thing is that now if one your nomination s gets eliminated you points are redistributed to your remaining nominations. You always have one vote and one point.

            Is that immune to exploits? Pretty much. But you shouldn’t worry about exploiting. Just vote for what you like. And don’t forget to send in your money.

          4. “Is that immune to exploits? Pretty much.”


            I especially loved the argument that the new setup wouldn’t change anything, based on testing it against results from previous years. Ever heard of the Polish cavalry?

            (a real thing in history, not an ethnic joke)

          5. You really don’t get that most of us are programmers and veteran gamers, do you? Look up the term “minmax” and learn a little about our attitude toward rule systems. If your system is gameable (and they all are), we’ll find that out. And watch to ensure that you’re not gaming the system.

          6. I know Doug. Your insistence that you will overcome what the fans want by exploiting the system is what gave rise to EPH.

            Similarly, you are stymied with the Goodreads Choice Award. You can’t control that either because your numbers here are tiny. You have a few people talking to each other over and over on a few different sites.

            But thanks for the threats. Those are helpful.

            PS – When you say “we are veteran gamers” like that is important, it really makes me chuckle.

          7. Stymied? To be stymied we’d have to be concerned about the awards and want to participate in them, but be denied to do so. You just don’t seem to get that WE DON’T CARE about the Goodreads Choice Award. You’re pretty much the only one here who seems to.

            And it’s clear that you have no inkling of what programmers and gamers do. Yes, please do chuckle smugly. It’ll help keep you from noticing what’s happening till it’s too late.

          8. That’s my point. You don’t care because you can’t freep them. You go after Worldcon because larry is mad he couldn’t win and the numbers work out that 15% can exploit the system. As you say, you want to exploit the system.

            In 2017 you won’t be able to do that for Worldcon either. But you will in 2016 so go to it Tiger.

            This really has nothing to do with good SFF.

          9. Oh son, how little you understand. About anything, evidently. We don’t care about Goodreads because they mean NOTHING to us. The Hugos used to designate quality works from the previous year. Now they designate works to stay away from. As far as Goodreads, they designate nothing meaningful to us, so we ignore them, as do pretty much everyone else. Personally, I don’t really much care if the Hugos can be rehabilitated or not. I think they’re pretty much meaningless at this point and no one outside of you SJWs pays much attention to them. Some folks are still trying to recapture them as indicators of quality, but that’s mostly for nostalgic reasons. As far as I’m concerned, all they indicate now are works to avoid, as their influence on the reading and buying public would seem to indicate.

          10. I’ve lost track of just what freeping means to you. The Hugo process has nothing to do with freeping.

          11. I think the reference was probably to Andy Weir, who wrote The Martian. While The Martian wasn’t eligible for the Hugo, Andy Weir was eligible for the Campbell but came in 6th in the nominations.

          12. Ish, one does not simply *walk* into Making Light punning. There are people there who will pun back at you in Latin (ranging from classics majors to Catholic boys who didn’t finish high school to math geeks), French-Canadian immigrants wearing Red Shirts, people who cut their teeth on Callahan’s crossed-lime spittoon and tacos with tentacles, Vatican-certified virtuous heathens, filkers who’ve published songs about Dorothy Parker robbing gas stations; it’s a dangerous place.

          13. Leckie didn’t win, but the Making Light crowd were also very impressed with 3-Body Problem (and Goblin Emperor) before the nominations got announced, and disappointed when your ballot-box stuffing kept it off the ballot.

            And yes, E Pluribus Hugo and 4of6 can probably be gamed, but the goal is to prevent people who want to wreck the Hugos from being able to do so easily, while still letting the nominations be as representative as possible of what people think is good writing. Is your goal to get awards to go to the best work, or to wreck things?

            (And many of us thought that Scalzi would have looked better in jewel tones than that pastel green, which didn’t suit him at all, but posing for charity is posing for charity.)

          14. Oh please. You SJWs did exactly what Larry and many others predicted you’d do, destroy the award rather than allow anyone not you to win. The Puppies may not have won the rather meaningless (and now obviously so) Hugo Awards, but they have comprehensively demonstrated the political lengths you SJWs will go to to destroy those who disagree with you. Which was the point all along, even if you couldn’t realize it.

        2. Don’t you mean “Can I get an AMYN?”

          Seriously SJW#, if you think that voting no award rather than vote for people of color that don’t agree with your philosphy is a win, you live on Bizarro World.

        3. It would have been a loss for the Sad Puppies if the SJW choices had won. Well not really the point was to have a diverse set of options.

          Having No Award so prominent and the asterisk used is definitely a win for the sad puppies as it shows the shallowness and pettiness of the truefans and CHORF’s. So by being so petty this isn’t a loss for the Sad Puppies.

          1. There was no SJW choices. There were Worldcon Fans nominations and there were Sad Puppy Slates and there was some overlap.

            Fans voted for what they liked and put “No Award” when they ran out of options.

            In one case what they liked was on a puppy slate. On all others, Fans found there preferences on nominations outside the puppy slate. There was no SJW slate and no SJW choices.

          2. I know for the Puppies it always comes down to “Wrong Fans” having “Wrong fun” and making “Wrong votes”. You lost because Fans didn’t vote your way.

          3. Again, you seem to be trying to equate “Fans” to “attendees and those buying supporting memberships to a Worldcon.” They’re not the same thing, and in fact are becoming farther and farther apart as time goes by.

          4. Hey numbers girl. We are the wrongfans. Not you. Get it right. You are [said in a mocking tone’ the “TUREFANS!”

            So get it right.

          5. So Andrew – you are in Texas as I recall. I asked you if you were familiar with the Lakewood Temptress. Are you?

          6. I’m going to partly disagree with you here. Many fans thought that using a slate to shut out anybody that Torgersen and Beale thought wasn’t one of their chosen politically correct works, and to break the normal nominating process by doing so, was unfair, and regardless of the work, voted against everything on the slate by putting it below No Award.

            I’m one of them, and I feel bad for a couple of the semi-pro-zines that were nominated without asking them. (And I didn’t see enough of the movies or short dramatic works to vote on those categories.) And there are some I’d have probably voted fourth or fifth if they’d been nominated fairly.

            Most of it, though? Ranged from “Not that great” down to “appalling.” If Beale can’t find anything better than three dozen John C. Wrights to nominate, he earned his bottom slot in both “Long Form” and “Short Form” editor. (A few non-Castalia nominees were less bad, but still.) And Kratman was terrible.

          7. So you voted No Award for everything and you’re proud of doing so? You do know that YOU are the ones responsible for making the Hugos something to laugh at, right? As for your taste in SF, well, it’s nothing more than your personal opinion, and not shared by a very large portion of the reading public. We won’t get into who is a “Fan” and who isn’t, since most of us care almost nothing about your “Fandom.”

          8. @Wild Bill –

            … using a slate to shut out anybody that Torgersen and Beale thought wasn’t one of their chosen politically correct works …

            Liar. You know better, and we know that you know better, and you should know that we know that you know better. Yes, Beale had political considerations in mind when he picked his recommendations; but Torgersen did not, as you darn well know.

            Oh, you want to claim that you’re not lying, that you really believe that Torgersen picked his works based on political correctness, and not (as he REPEATEDLY said) on the basis of fun? Fine. Provide evidence, please, or else retract your false statement. Because if you double down on your assertions without providing any evidence, I’m going to call you a liar again.

        4. they only take effect in2017 if they are ratified next year in Kansas City.

          There were only 250 votes for EPH and only 168 for 4/6

          4/6 passed 86-82
          EPH passed 186-62

          attending membership is only ~$100 (plus travel), it wouldn’t take many people to change things and vote these down next year

          1. LOL – I just answered you on Brad’s site. This is partially what I posted there….

            You say: “also, remember that these proposals have to pass again next year. at only $100 for an attending membership, you may find that a lot of puppies are willing to go to vote it down (it depends on how things go over the next year)”

            So if you can get a majority of puppies to fork over $100 it won’t matter. Your problem is you want to dominate the nominations and control the ballot with few members. So you have to resort to tricks and gimmicks. Basically it is like a Denial of Service attack. But if you can energize enough people to become the majority you don’t need trick or gimmicks. And that would be fine.

            When you say “(it depends on how things go over the next year)”, it might mean something different than you think. You already have people bragging on what they kept of the ballet and people like Sarah swearing to swamp the ballot next year. This all came up in the membership debate. Those statements help pass the proposals. You keep telling the fans you pissed on them and intend to do it again, they reach for protective gear.

          2. And by “fans,” you clearly mean “SJWs.” What’s becoming increasingly clear, is that actual fans of SF (as opposed to fen, which is the fannish plural of fan) care almost not at all (and less and less as time goes on) about the Hugo Awards. You SJWs have destroyed them and beclowned yourselves, and only you don’t yet recognize that fact.

          3. Certainly they don’t. Awards mean little except to the Fans that attend the convention and talk about them and discuss them. To the rest of us … “meh”.

          4. You do realize – no, of course you don’t, if you had any grasp of history you wouldn’t be a SJW – that it wasn’t always that way. The Hugos used to be a mark of quality, a sign that the work held some merit. Now, thanks to your co-religionists, that is no longer the case. The entire premise behind Sad Puppies 3 and 4 is to restore the Hugos to the symbol of excellence they were before you Progressive twits got your hands on them.

          5. Blah blah blah. Times change. Did you watch the Hugos? I did. Great show. But those guys have been going to that convention for 40 years. They are a family of sorts. When they pass away they notice , pause and weep.

            Each convention is unique and the fans are unique. You guys care nothing about this convention other than to wreck it. Seriously, you are not nice people.

            If you want to vote, vote. But as Doug says you want to exploit. And you stack the ballot with a bunch of crap and pretend you are doing it for symbol. What a load of crap. Larry is doing it because he is mad. Vox is doing it because he is marketing. And your doing it because they stirred you up with a bunch a culture BS.

            Sure it was different when SFF was small and the field narrow and there was no internet and few writers. But that’s not now. Now it is so broad you can’t really define it and there is the internet for getting information and any number of clubs and websites and sub genres.

            But if you want to wreck the Hugos, go get it. You have one more year. If you want to participate, then join that family and participate. But those Hugos belong to the fans that award them. And they are not “wrong fans” having “wrong fun” .

          6. Times do change, and Worldcon keeps getting smaller and smaller – one other victory condition for Sad Puppies, we’ve gotten you all to admit that the Hugos do not represent all of SF fandom. Absent Puppy intervention, Worldcon would grey and die in a couple of decades. Then maybe the names Hugo and Campbell can be picked up by a convention that can more reasonably claim to represent fandom – ComiCon for example.

            No matter what, we win, you lose.

          7. Nah, it just makes you losers. But you already knew that. After all, why else would you so completely flip your shit over a bunch of fans nominating overlooked works for a fan award? Because it is all you have, and you’ll do anything to hold on to it, even though your very presence is killing it.

          8. Loncon 2014 was either the largest or the second largest Worldcon ever, depending on how you count it, but why let the facts bother you?

          9. Exploit? Typical SJW, trying to redefine words to mean something they never did. What the Puppies are trying to do isn’t to exploit anything, but to recapture a formerly-prestigious award from the socio/political extremists who have captured its presentation in the past decade or so. This is what you call “wrecking” the Hugos. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

          10. Good for you Dougie. Then you will just vote and however the fans determine the outcome you will be good with that. Sounds great to me.

            But if you intend to use slating to stack the ballot again, you only have one more year. Then that door is closed. And you will be just a small number of the total votes as you are today but without the leverage of freeping.

            Glad you are good with that.

          11. So nominating things we like is exploiting but nominating things you like as a group is ok.

            Got it your a hypocrite.

          12. Actually paying attention to what others say isn’t your strong suit, is it? I’ve been very clear that I don’t think the Hugos are worth rehabilitating at this point. I know others are sentimentally attached to them, but I’m not. As for your contentions, they’re just as deluded as ever.

          13. ” Great show. But those guys have been going to that convention for 40 years. They are a family of sorts. When they pass away they notice , pause and weep.”

            And when the last one of the “guys” dies of old age, alone at the podium, insulting a best selling author and by association, that author’s young fans with his or her last wheezing breath… at least that person can know that the sanctity of the Hugos was kept pure.

            Meanwhile, the young people who like vampires will all be at Comic Con.

          14. ‘You have one more year. ”


            A cursory examination of the general trend in nominations in Puppies 1-3, (and the escalating levels of self-beclownment you CHORFs have had to resort to in order to make sure CrimeThink books don’t win) doesn’t exactly support your thesis that you’re on the winning side here.

            But do enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.

            I’m looking forward to the commiesplaining of why locking Toni Weisskopf and Sheila Gilbert out of the Best Editor award was actually “good for women”. I’m also looking forward to an commieplanation of why PNH cursing out L. Jagi Lamplighter (one of his own authors, mind) when she approached him in peace isn’t misogynistic.

            I’m sure you’ll come up with something. It’d shouldn’t be too hard, considering how much practice you guys have in explaining why those starving peasants building pyramids of the skulls of their fellows actually represents the victory of the proletariat.

          15. You hit it right on the head. What happened to disagreeing with a woman is sexism? Didn’t Frenkel get fired from Tor for “sexual harassment” for a similar incident? Where’s Jim Hines and his feminist outhouse who led that witchhunt, the details we STILL don’t know. C’mon HInes. Where’s your post calling for the firing of this misogynist? It should be obvious by now this sick ideology is not a principled one but one that selects targets it hates and uses fake rules to show they don’t really hate the target but are merely compelled to follow their feminist rules. “Liars” is the actual term.

          16. Hayden has, in the past, been a strong proponent of the “punching down” theory (essentially that abusive behavior is excusable when the “oppressed” person is doing it, but not when the “oppressor” is doing it).

            Exactly how this applies in the case of a large male (who is also a powerful editor) shouting abuse at a small female who works for his publishing house is left as an exercise for the reader.

          17. Hey Doc,

            See the way it works is people nominate and then Fans vote. You seem to miss that part. It wasn’t good for women or bad for women. Just the judgement of the fans.

            And the fans voted to stop you guys from freeping the awards in 2017 which is something they didn’t have to do before. You have one more year to stomp your feet and try to upset things out of spite. Free country. Go for it. But it has nothing to do with SFF.

          18. Yup, nothing I enjoy more than being lectured on parliamentary procedure by a person who can’t even spell “ballot”.

            Looking forward to next year’s business meeting…

          19. According to L. Jagi Lamplighter, what Nielsen Hayden said to her in response to her bringing an “olive branch” from Wright was to “tell Wright to shovel it up his …”, which, while rude, does not appear to have been an attack on her, and having read Wright’s attacks on PNH’s and TNH’s religion both before and after, I’d be quite amused to hear what he thought an “olive branch” was, or if he understood the original reference.

          20. If someone yelled that at my wife over something I’d said, he’d be on his ass, quickly.

            If you have a problem with her husband, you politely tell her you have a problem then take it up with JCW. Or are you as much of a coward as PNH?

          21. It’s people like you who are destroying not only SF but Freedom of Speech in general.

            I say lets do the same thing you did, if you can’t win, then nobody wins, I won’t mind so much knowing you would be the one whining about it the most.

        5. Poor tactics, sport. You win by seeing to it that all possible results end in victory.

          If the SP recommendations win, we win.

          If the CHORFs expose themselves as little fascist by burning the awards down, we win.

          1. SJW75126 does not get it, what the SJWs and the CHORFs got was a Pyrrhic victory and whatever rules they plan to implement in 2017 to stop the Sad Puppies/Rabid puppies and other outsiders will only hasten the inevitable demise of the Hugo Awards. From now on, the SJWs, CHORFS and the GRRMs will be permanently playing a futile defensive war, trying to hold on to what remains of their gains and trying to stem their inevitable defeat by adopting a scorch earth policy which ironically would hasten their demise. Winning the Hugo Awards is not actual goal, destroying the SJW, CHORFS and GRRMs is the actual end game and you suckers fell for the bait.

          2. whatever rules they plan to implement in 2017 to stop the Sad Puppies/Rabid puppies and other outsiders will only hasten the inevitable demise of the Hugo Awards.

            Whine whine whine. You guys are worse than Dallas Cowboy Fans after a football game loss. The Hugos will do whatever its Fans want it to do.

            “Winning the Hugo Awards is not actual goal, destroying the SJW, CHORFS and GRRMs is the actual end game and you suckers fell for the bait.”

            Yes everyone knows. That’s why they plugged the whole in the nomination process. You and Larry and Brad and Vox and Sarah and Kate have one more year. Should be fun watching you first flail – then fail. And all your great “gamers” won’t be able to freep EPH. But you will be able to vote so keep those dollars rolling in.

          3. You continue to demonstrate that you just don’t know what you’re talking about. The Hugos are basically done for, now. They’re meaningless (they already were, of course, but now that’s obvious to everyone). As for not being able to exploit rules weaknesses in EPH, if that’s true then it will apply to you SJWs as well, which will only rebound badly on you. If it’s not true, then you surely had better expect that serious programmers and gamers will figure out how to use the rules to their benefit (just as you SJWs have done with the previous rules when no one was paying attention).

          4. This is getting amusing. All of the SJW commentors are claiming they have this HUGE number of people that will continue to slap down any effort to rid the Hugos of log-rolled message fiction. Looking at the numbers it appears 2.5-3k people who voting in lock step as FANDOM! This is not a large number of people. By now gloating about how they burned down the awards they are going to attract people to counter them.

          5. Our numbers are growing. Yours are shrinking. Worldcon was on a long, slow slide into extinction until the puppies got involved. I realize that the senile hippies who have been in charge for the last few decades don’t like this, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

            If nothing else, we’re outbreeding you. The Haydens have no children. Scalzi has one, I think. Few of the were crab lice and otherkin barnacles have any.

            This holds true in real life, too. Note that the Democrats don’t have a single credible Presidential candidate who isn’t a) lily-white and b) old enough to draw Social Security.

          6. Please define outsiders. From what I can tell you mean everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Also how do you define who is or isn’t a fan? From what you said so far it seem you only mean people who do agree with you.

        6. I see nothing about the situation which will prevent the Puppies from coming back in greater numbers in 2016 and 2017 and either winning Hugos, or forcing you to avoid giving awards to avoid giving any to them. The only way you can keep control of the Hugos is to change the nomination and/or voting procedure such that it is only voted on by a closed committee of Worldcon or that the committee gets to throw out the votes it doesn’t like.

          You can of course do that — but if you do that then the Hugos become meaningless — they lose all pretense of being an award given by “fandom” and instead become merely an award given by your little club. Which is STILL a Puppy win, because then the Puppies merely set up their own awards — and THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS. Worldcon would just become an increasingly smaller and more intellectually-incestuous club.

  7. Oh man. The majority voted against you. The small “clique” lost. This proves there’s no conspiracy. That you insist otherwise just proves you’re bitter you haven’t won in previous years.

    Unless this awful clique numbers in the thousands?

    Grow-up, man. Maybe you can win on your own merits, someday.

  8. Tobias Buckell suggests these noble anti-racists were kept off the ballot:

    John Scalzi
    Ken Liu
    Rachel Swirsky
    Seanan McGuire
    Kai Ashante Wilson
    Aliette de Bodard
    Amal El-Mohtar
    Max Gladstone
    Alyssa Wong
    Carmen Machado
    Django Wexler

    Better luck next year noble freedom riders and defenders of PoC. You will be remembered at the Intersectional Hall of Fame and Institute of Man-Fear. The erasure of your lived-experiences is a hate-crime by cisbearded neckdudes and a normative man-tears parade. That Patriarchy will burn in Hell, and it will sound like this:


      1. I didn’t have to look at a baker’s dozen of maudlin whiners about white privilege standing at the podium. That’s a win with collateral damage. Don’t forget to check your privilege before the mental ward does lights out.

      2. It wouldn’t have mattered if Sad Puppies had nominated Weir because your buddies WOULD HAVE NO-AWARDED HIM LIKE ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE WE PICKED.

        1. Did you ever hear of “Guardians of the Galaxy”. Guess not. It was on a slate. It won a Hugo.

          Now let’s be clear who “buddies” are. They are thousands of Fans who joined and voted just like the puppies did. You guys just think they are “wrong fans” having “wrong fun”.

          1. From boots-on-the-ground report as well as all the twitter bragging and blog bragging and everywhere else in the universe bragging. The No Award crowd didn’t bother to read the works in question. They just voted ‘No Award’ then bragged about it. This is slate behavior. While here, people discussed the works who they put first, second, third, etc. and why and how it was different from this person’s or that person’s and what issues they had with which books and how the priorities of this person or that person and their taste made some of the issues of more or less import to a given reader. Not exactly slate behavior.

            But keep to your delusions. All I can say is Bless your poor, dear little heart.

          2. Nonsense. I read the other works. One of the advantages of a Sustaining Membership is that most years, you get a good-sized collection of good science fiction, even if you’re not going to be able to get to the con. Last year (and to a lesser extent, this year), one of the publishers decided to only provide excerpts of the novels, and of course the movies never end up in the packets, but in return we got Warbound, which was fun, and The Entire Flaming Wheel Of Time.

            Unfortunately, this year, there was a bunch of appallingly lame Puppy Chow instead of entertaining science fiction (demonstrating that Theo Beale can’t edit his way out of an ink-stained paper bag and thinks John C. Wright is either entertaining or high-quality.) Really, even if you’re trying to break the Hugo process by creatively stuffing the ballot box, can’t you find better work than that? I don’t know if Larry’s nominee would have worked without having read the rest of the series first, but even he decided to drop out, and many of the original nominees hadn’t been asked or didn’t realize what they were being asked. Kratman’s a hack, Torgersen has more skill but doesn’t appear to have a soul, if you wanted MilSF, didn’t David Weber write something you could have nominated? Or somebody?

        2. The Rabid Puppies #1 pick was 3 Body Problem. If Vox had read it a month earlier it would have been on the RP slate. Then the CHORFs would have no award the eventual winner… And they’d be proud of it.

          1. Not to mention that the only Hugo to go to a non-Caucasian received it because of Vox and company. If not for the RP vote, it would have gone to Goblin Emperor.

            SJW heads would explode if they were physically able to contemplate that contradiction in their worldview.

          2. Would Beale have nominated 3BP if it hadn’t been talked up so much by the Tor crowd and the rest of the SJWs he hates? Would he have even seen it? I’d have expected at least Torgersen to have nominated that Heinlein bio, but I guess there were too many more politically correct works like “Annoying Rants I Found On The Internet”.

  9. I didn’t know who was in a slate and who wasn’t. I voted for what I thought was worthy. And honstly , if those “No Award” wins coincided with all-slate categories then those slates were full of bad or mediocre works. You assume too much collusion in voting. Some may have colluded (they probably did) but I think most didn’t. There were just a lot of crappy nominees.

  10. The SJWs slate voted “No Award” 2,674 votes in protest of people they don’t like slate voting. Why 2,674 slate SJW votes?

    Skin Game: No Award: 2674 (Butcher has no big fan connection)
    Mike Resnik editor: No Award 2672 (Resnik has won many times before)
    Totaled: No Award 3,053 (spoken of highly even by SJWs)
    Toni Weisskoph: No Award 2,496

    An objective analysis would suggest that there were anywhere from 2,496 to 3,053 hard core, SJW “no award everything as a slate vote” for people we dislike who slate nominated someone.

    So approximately 2,500 to 3,050 slate voted “no award” because they were not part of the SJW clique.

    And once again for people who wish to vent their spleen without knowing any objective facts. I’m a first time Hugo voter who read all of the nominees and voted what I liked. I also did not participate in nominating.

    I did find it incredibly rude and bullying to cheer “no award” when potential winners are in the audience. But mob mentality can easily creep up on crowds of like thinking people. That is just nasty behavior.

    1. No, we didn’t vote No Award because works weren’t part of the SJW clique, we voted for No Award because they were nominated by a small but well-organized group who wanted their politically correct works to break the Hugo nominations in ways that were, admittedly, creative. And that did mean voting No Award for some people who I might have otherwise liked, as well as for a bunch of no-talent hacks like Beale and Kratman, but nobody I’d have considered for first place. (I didn’t see enough of the movies or TV episodes to vote in those categories; I don’t know if the Puppies picked Guardians of the Galaxy because it was popular or because it was one of TNH’s favorite movies of the year.) Toni Weisskopf didn’t think submitting a list of her work was necessary. Resnick was my 3rd choice among the short-form editors (so I voted him 4th, with No Award first.) Zombie Nation was a big step down in quality below the other graphic novels.

  11. As I pointed out over at Brad’s place, we’ve seen months of ‘You’re ruining our fun out of spite!’ comments from the APs, but now that the results are in they seem to be having the time of their lives. And we have the satisfaction of having our view of the Hugos as insular and cliquish confirmed.

    So, their you go, we’ve brought new voters to the Hugos, raised their public profile, and spread happiness to all. Not bad work, is it?

  12. Cross-posted over at Brad’s place, but I figured I’d put it up here for dissection/discussion.

    Random thoughts after reading the detailed voting pdf:

    1. The anti-SP/RP sentiment is even more striking in the numbers than it was in the actual ceremony (with people applauding for No Award, which I found completely tasteless). It looks to me (haven’t had much coffee yet, so feel free to check my numbers) that when No Award won, it won on the First Pass, meaning No Award got an absolute majority of #1 votes for that category.

    2. In the Novel category, The Three Body Problem led from the start against The Goblin Emperor (though it was close), with the other three noms WAY behind. I had previously speculated (sarcastically) that some of the new Supporting Memberships may have been fans of Cixin Liu (who is a rock star in China) who registered simply to vote for him here. I don’t really believe it was a lot of people, but it might have been enough to put him over the edge.

    3. I have repeatedly asked people to tell me what worthy works they think that the SP/RP slates might have pushed off the ballot, and I’m not seeing much. Trial by Fire was a Nebula nominee, so I suppose you could say that one. The eventual Nebula Award winner (Annihilation) is literally the last thing on the list, so it wouldn’t have been nominated in any case. Andy Weir was edged out of a Campbell nomination, which I think he probably would’ve won, but I think Andy Weir is probably set for life with all of the money he’s made (and will make) for The Martian, so I don’t really think he’s crying over it.

    4. Now we come to the big question: What happens now? It looks like ~3,000 people came out and voted No Award to the all-SP/RP writing categories. Whatever happens at the business meeting today (EDIT: Both EPH and 4/6 passed.), it won’t change the nominations process for next year. I suspect that there will be enough people in that group of ~3,000 who will simply show up at the door when SP4 gets off the ground, just so they can throw in potential noms. (GRRM has even suggested that people do this.) I have no idea how Kate Paulk is going to handle it. My big prediction for next year is that the nominations portion of the Hugos is going to be a big huge nasty mess.

    1. “I have no idea how Kate Paulk is going to handle it. ”

      If I understood the discussions that went on about this, it’s a “the more the merrier” kind of thing. Anyone can suggest books, stories, etc. that they enjoyed and offer them up for the consideration of others. If the current Hugo in group wants to join in the conversation, let them. It would be a more productive use of their time than concocting spiteful plans to reject works without reading them. [Let’s not get started on the incredibly classless way in which attendees cheered “No Award”….talk about sore winners….]

      Perhaps the various parties could actually debate the merits of the books, stories, etc. being suggested. Maybe then people would take a look at those books, stories, etc. and subsequently make up their own minds about what to nominate.

      Personally, I thought all the candidates for the Graphic Novel category were disappointing. Either poorly drawn and/or clumsily written ( in my opinion). If an Rat Queens enthusiast wants to try to convince me that I’m missing something worthwhile about it, hey, let’s hear it. Tell me why your choices are good ones and do me the courtesy of listening to why I think XYZ is worthy.

      1. Somewhat humorous, decently drawn. Best of the nominees. Of course, there were at least a thousand unnominated graphic works out there that are far better, so, meh.

        Not that it mattered. The CHORFS had to show their love for their little brown brothers that behead anyone in their way, rape and enslave women, and generally want to destroy civilization.

  13. So, if The Three-Body Problem had been a Puppy pick, would it have also been No-Awarded? I think so.

    Think about that.

    1. @Christopher

      Especially because Vox has said that the only reason the 3BP wasn’t on his slate is that he hadn’t read it first.

      that accident is the only reason why it won. It’s been pointed out that it’s margin of victory is smaller than the RP group that appears to have voted in lockstep the way Vox asked them to. So Vox’s support caused it to win.

      1. Would Beale have even seen 3BP if it hadn’t been for anti-Puppies talking it up, shortly before and just after it got crowded off the ballot by Puppies?

        1. Like leftists everywhere, you make the category error of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant. Beale is neither; you may not like him or what he says, but assuming him to not be intelligent and aware only illustrates your inability to see the world around you.

    2. Yes and no. It would have lost, but the Hugo for Best Novel would’ve gone to The Goblin Emperor (and the numbers were close), so there would still have been a Hugo for Best Novel. I wanted The Goblin Emperor to win, because it’s a standalone novel. The Three Body Problem is the first of a trilogy, and the whole thing has been out in Chinese for several years. It reportedly gets better as it goes (Book 2 just came out in English.), so Cixin Liu has two more chances to win.

  14. I’ve posted this elsewhere, but I think it needs to be said here too: I’m sick of this sort of revisionism. We lost. We lost badly – 2,500 people voted No Award even in Long Form Editor, where even the likes of GRRM were saying that Toni Weisskopf deserved to win. Most other categories well over 3,000 No Awards out of less than 5,000 votes.

    For the most part, the people ranking Jim Butcher and Kary English below No Award weren’t crazy SJWs. They voted that way because they bought the media line that all Puppies are racist sexist homophobic bigots that think all SF should be Manly Men doing Manly Things in Space.

    What we need to do is face up to the facts and admit that we’re losing the propaganda war. Team SJW is pumping out bullshit, and most SF fans are swallowing it. Yeah, whatever, Hugo voters don’t represent the average SF fan – but if the average fan knows anything at all about Puppies it’s that we’re a disgusting hate group that’s trying to keep women and minorities out of SF.

    We need to work on our messages, we need to get those messages out, and we need to turn the Hugo awards back into something that signifies the best SF of the year instead of standing for unreadable left wing wannabe-litfic. What we don’t need to do is pull a Vox Day and pretend that No Award was our goal all along.

    1. Okay… point one. There is no possible way to control the “propaganda war” other than to persevere and wait it out. It’s impossible to stop people from lying about you. They lie and lie and lie. And yes, lots of people believe that, oh, Wired is a trustworthy source. But all “we” can do is point out over and over that they lie and lie and lie.

      Complaining that it’s “your fault because you allowed our side to lie about you” is why you got called a concern troll. This is exactly the concern troll message. It’s YOUR fault, we’re told, because we somehow made it possible for those lies to stick. Bull sh*t. Our whole political reality in the US is infected by this One Big Lie. It’s so bad, actually, that the liars themselves defend their lies and slander… well, it *stuck* so I didn’t really lie… right? Who told Wired that this was about a group who wanted science fiction to be whiter and more male? Did the person who said that actually believe it? What are the chances? Do any of the Big Names that might have been contacted (or done the contacting) really believe that? I’d put everything I own and the roof over my head on the fact that Scalzi doesn’t believe it for even a minute. It’s just a powerful and effective tool. Lies, lies and more lies.

      So… work on our messages? No. Their lies are not our responsibility.

      1. The reason there is a Society of Professional Journalists dedicated to ethics means at least some people feel it is their responsibility to embed factual rebuttals to lying. In fact, making their lies your responsibility is the only way to win this thing.

    2. I agree with KJK. There have been tactical errors. First is swallowing the “F” word. Second is we have no folks documenting the hate Tweeting in SFF and then confronting them and mocking them. If you look at Gamergate, that is precisely what they do. One can look at the SPJ Airplay event on youtube and see how these people should be handled. This gay feminist ideology is one of serial lying. That’s because its every tenet is based on lies.

      The articles by Hurley at The Atlantic, Meadows at the HuffPo and Walter at The Guardian are easily torn to pieces on ethics violations alone. So are virtually all the rest of the Puppies articles in the mainstream press. SFF’s blogs should also be targeted. Just because one is not a journalist is not a free ticket to lie.

      Much of this problem lies with mixing intersectional feminism with Marx, Alinsky, liberalism and leftism. There is no moral high ground confronting legitimate political expressions which are tolerated in America, no matter how much you don’t like them. However there is moral high ground in fighting hate speech and group defamation based on nothing more than one’s skin and sex, which is exactly what SFF’s feminists do.

      The Nebulas and now the Hugos are nothing more than a feminist KKK. If you go off fighting Marxists and death gulags next year you will look like a fool and lose. You have no moral right to a Hugo or to have your type of stories showcased. It is perfectly legitimate to write left leaning or even intersectional SFF. It is not legitimate to use demonization theories that would make a Nazi proud to power affirmative action awards, racial incitement and discrimination. No one gives a shit about diversity. What I give a shit about is it is never discussed outside the context of the innate failings of men and whites, and even heterosexuals as an entire group. You are not up against “liberals.” You are up against seriously mentally ill people allied with others who just don’t like men, whites and straight folks who have sold their sickness to middle class morons. Only feral sociopaths are afraid of all men and whites on Earth and feel there is some bill due. I have never see a feminist in SFF invoke Marx or Alinsky. I have seen the word “patriarchy” 10,000 times and the lesbian Bechdel Test an easy 1,000 times. Wake up. These people worship Lorde, Butler and Russ, not Marx.

    3. No, most of us who voted for No Award, as far as I can tell, did so because you guys tried to game the system, voting in a block to keep everybody who wasn’t part of your politically correct clique off the ballot. It was within the rules, but it was still cheating, and voting No Award in response is also within the rules. It was exploiting an interesting weakness in the nomination system, and unlike the previous year, when all you were trying to do was put your Fiction For Manly Men And Their Dogs onto the ballot, this time you were trying to break the Hugos, and your boys Kratman and Beale said as much. (And last year I voted for Correia’s Warbound, not first because I thought there were better works, but not last either. I did vote for Torgesen, Beale, and Wells below no award, and also The Meathouse Man by GRRM and Raya Golden, because I thought they were terrible.)

      1. If it was within the rules, by definition it wasn’t cheating. And if you were interested in not breaking the Hugos (which many of us argue are already irremediably broken), you wouldn’t have voted No Award so profligately, which only proved everything the Puppies have said from the beginning.

      2. Yes, the vote was what the fans thought. And the Fans voted.

        The pups can never win the propaganda war because there is no war. There are only Fans doing what Fans do. And pups freeping the system so to produce a subpar ballot didn’t help.

        Next year pups will do what pups do which is fight a culture war because they think the Worldcon Fans are wrong Fans having Wrong Fun and reading Wrong Books because they are SJWs and CHORFs. And besides – Heinlein.

        Kate says they will produce a different list based on popularity. We will see but as Kate is bug nutty and her blog compares Fans to Hitler, I remain skeptical. However, if it is true and Pups suggest popular works not based on politics, Fans will vote for them like they did Galaxy. So if they suggest Seveneves and The End of All Things (Old Man’s War Book 6) those will end up above “No Award”. And Seveneves might win – the Scalzi book won’t because it is the 6th book in a series.

        If the pup list is a top 10 of puppy food, some of it may get nominated but it will end up below “No Award”.

        Then after that, it won’t matter what the pups do although they should be able to get a couple of slots on the ballot which is fine.

        1. It’s interesting–you are tacitly admitting that the Puppie’s positions are having a noticeable effect that you don’t like by trying to co-opt their terminology of “WrongFans” having “WrongFun.” It won’t work, of course, since we’re at least as intelligent and observant as you (and I’m being generous to you here) but you can never understand or admit that. Oh, and no one’s buying your pitiful attempts to equate “Fan” with CHORFs. As for Kate being “bug nutty,” that’s nothing but a compliment coming from the likes of you.

        2. I go away for a week, and come back to find that you’re still repeating yourself on a several week old blog post? Hell, it is my blog and I don’t usually read the comments down this far.

          As for Kate being bug nutty, suck my balls.

          Now you are boring me. Holy shit, just shut up already.

  15. I heard that the loudest cheering and applause did not came from the announcement of the winners, but when it was announced that certain categories ended up as a No Award. Anyone who has footage of that?

    If so, it seems like another reminder that the whole thing is more about politics and shaping the genre in their own image, instead of celebrating fantasy and science fiction.

    The rumors has it that they now have a plan to change the rules to prevent something similar to happen in the future. But who is it who makes the rules?

    1. Attendees at Woldcon can attend the business meeting and vote on changes to the rules. Items passed one year must get ratified the following year before taking effect the third year (and there was proposal due to be ratified this year that would extend this process another year, I don’ t know what happened with that vote)

      This isn’t very many people. this year there was a very hot issue that ‘lots of people really cared about’, the vote for that item was under 250 votes (total, both for and against), after which a lot of people left and the following item had <170 votes.

    2. I was watching the livestream, and yes, when it was announced that the Puppies’s attempt at imposing politically correct works on the Hugos had failed (for whichever category that happened to first), there was cheering, and booing. Perhaps inappropriate, but hardly surprising.

        1. You know, SJW75126, on July 31st, I wrote the following about you:

          “Underneath SJW’s broad ignorance of how conservatives really think, he really does have a genuine niceness and willingness, in the end, to agree to disagree. ”

          Having seen more of your behavior, I hereby retract that statement. Congratulations, you managed to lose my good will.

          1. I still agree to disagree. Did you miss the “Then after that, it won’t matter what the pups do although they should be able to get a couple of slots on the ballot which is fine.”

            People can simply agree to disagree. Or… they might just agree with you. Or you might agree with them. After all … every one voted for Gaurdians.

            I did particularly like the way the voting went (you disagree) so I was empathetic when the cheer went up. Till then, lots of people thought all those new members were pups fighting a culture war. The only thing I would like to see have changed was for Butcher to finish above no award. But hey – that’s why people vote. They disagreed with me.

          2. You and Larry are much nicer guys. Every comment he’s posted has contained at least one lie. Same thing for “Wild Bill”.

            At this point, both he and Wild Bill are using Larry’s principle of not banning trolls to see how many other people they can drive out of here…. which is another SJW tactic.

  16. Someone (on another site) mentioned that there were apparently approximately 6,000 “ineligible” ballots. Has anyone heard about this, and if so, what gives?

    1. 6000 missing votes does not compute. There were ~10k people eligible to vote and ~6K votes, so there are only ~4K who could have but didn’t

      looking at past years, 4000 people eligible to vote and not voting is not an unusual number, even when the total number of people eligible was much lower.

    2. No. The eligible voters are those who paid $40 for an Affiliate membership and those who paid to attend in person. The 6,000 people who were eligible to vote did not choose to vote. I do not think this was a conspiracy. The proportion of those who had memberships who voted this year was higher than in past worldcons. But there has always been a substantial number of people who did not vote.

      Worldcon does one thing quite well – present raw data. Anyone can slice and dice it however they wish. I have a Ph.D. – mostly in statistics and social science research methods. The numbers don’t seem to be substantially different than in the past. Those with stats training could run the numbers – but it does not seem odd based on prior voting behavior.

      1. loncon3 (2014 worldcon) had ~9000 people eligible to vote and they bragged about the record number of votes, ~3600

        so there were ~6400 people eligible to vote last year that didn’t

        This year there were almost twice as many people who voted, with only a slight increase in the total number eligible

        last year there were around 1000 more attending membership than this year (london is much more of a destination 🙂 but this year there were about 3000 more supporting memberships

  17. Silly SJW’s, they think they’ve won.
    In their delusional little minds, the whole thing ended last night in true Hollywood style, with a swell of triumphant music, a freeze frame on the triumphant faces, and roll credits.
    Kid, you ain’t seen nothing yet. It ain’t over, and you’re not about to live happily ever after.

    The thing the SJW’s can seem to grasp is that in each year of SP, they lose ground. The best they could do this year is “No Award”.

    1. It gets better.

      All those non-puppies who paid $40 and voted their genuine preferences just got shit on by the SJWs. And they know it. All those authors and their fans in the categories taken by Noah Ward just got shit on by the SJWs. And they know it.

      Next year, who do you think those people are going to side with, the puppies who put works they enjoyed on the ballot, or the clowns with the TP hanging out the back of their pantyhose?

      SJW’s are like rl versions of Wil. E. Coyote.

    2. When your SJW Hypocrites smiled at the cheering of the No Award but tried to silence the boo’s, A couple white trash drunks like those thuggets at Barack OhBernie Sanders hippie love in did and start screaming to let them speak and that White Lives Matter.

      Course you’d have to start smacking the shit out of the SJW’s because unlike how they pander to black thugs, they will be definitely be quick to call security on people who are not White Uncle Toms and have something to say.

      Eat my Shorts you Scalzi Scum Bags.

  18. I would have voted for EPH and 4-6. and Saga and YA, and just about everything on the agenda if they were to put a sunset provision on whatever it is. TRY a few things FFS. It’s as if they think that the best fan artist Hugo would be sullied if a Best Saga Hugo went to … uh…. anything not quite perfect.
    I’ve advocated for sunset provisions over at Making Light and wherever. EPH added a 5 yr sunset at the business meeting. One was added to 4-6.

    1. A 72 page set of rules for nominations replacing a 1 page rule of nominations is a weird, Rube Goldberg rules change to ensure the SJWs can control the nomination process.

      If preventing a slate from controlling all nominees on a Hugo ballot was the only concern, the 4-6 rule would have been the only one that passed. 4-6 was an elegant solution without weird complexity to ensure that a single slate did not control an entire category. Of course, that was way, way too simple for the SJW SMFs to embrace. As a statistician, I thought 4-6 was an elegant solution to a perceived problem.

      1. now, let’s not exaggerate, it’s only a few pages of new rules, the rest is an attempt to make people say they can understand _how_ the rule works

        but any voting system that is that complex is going to have serious trust issues.

        given that there was some editing of the proposals at the business meeting. It will be interesting to see what the actual resulting proposals look like

      2. As a math geek who’s occasionally done stats and game theory, sure, I agree 4 of 6 is elegant, but it’s not enough to stop the Puppies from overwhelming it. It means you have to have a couple of slates and some randomization, but if you can find enough politically correct work in each category, you can do that, and otherwise, another dozen novellas by “the finest and modestest writer in all of Western history” will do.

        The development of EPH was an interesting discussion to watch (for a while, at least :-), and its main goal was to be more robust against attacks while still being fair to nominations by individuals, including attackers.

  19. I saw a comment about Sad Puppies “crapping their pants” over the Worldcon asterisk. I saw a picture of one and it looks like it’s made out of balsa wood or something. After digging around to see what it is, it’s apparently a commemorative thing and the proceeds are going to Terry Pratchett’s favorite charity, so my question is “Wut? Why would anyone have anything against giving to charity? ” Kudos for charitable giving, but get real.

    1. They have been saying for months that this would be the year of the asterisk, meaning that the hugo awards this year are tainted or otherwise not ‘real hugos’

      With that context, do you still see nothing wrong with the “Official” asterisks being handed out to all nominees at the reception just prior to the awards?

  20. Article after article in the mainstream press says SP is pushing back against women. There is never any explanation why this didn’t happen in 1990, after a massive influx of women writers in the ’80s. I have a simpler explanation: the mass adoption of intersectional feminism 2009-12 as a religion and its irrational suspicions of men is the true culprit. Suddenly there is a mass entrance of women? Suddenly? 25 years and more of sudden? And there’s a pushback against non-whites? Where is the evidence for that; where are the industry-wide quotes that could possible match the mountain of racial incitement spewed out by social justice crusaders? Their Twitter feeds look like a black and white negative of Stormfront when it comes to presenting interracial crimes. Then we have Samuel Delany’s nonsensical formula that the more non-whites enter SFF the more uncomfortable whites will be. Other than Delany’s own insensate animus towards whites, what sense does that even make. Only a racist maintains there is a racial ownership of culture, a thing SJWs do, not us. Cultural appropriation didn’t come from us, but from these hypocrites who fling it at us as much as they ignore it when it shows them in a mirror. Martin and Glyer and the other BMOC’s could’ve ended this in one day, simply by acknowledging that as adults in the 21st century they are capable of creating a definition of hate speech and then using their sites as a forum to present evidence from both sides. The problem there are virtually no straight white male SFF authors not on the side of feminism affected; such quotes simply do not exist in numbers. On the other hand, 70 members of the SFWA alone would have had salvos aimed at them from the start, and that con game is the rub, bub. That explains why 770s creepy commenters pretend English is a ball of clay they can mold however they wish. They can say “racial incitement” and they can spell it, they just don’t have a fucking definition of it which goes beyond “not us.”

      1. Thinking gay third wave feminism and liberalism, leftism and Marxism are interchangeable terms is a mistake.

    1. Article after article in the mainstream press says SP is pushing back against women. “There is never any explanation why this didn’t happen in 1990, after a massive influx of women writers in the ’80s. ”

      Because Larry didn’t organize you back then. If he had won, he wouldn’t have organized you now. This started because Larry didn’t win an award and he had to blame someone. Pretty simple.

      1. I see. So there is no misogyny – just Larry. Gay feminists were regular Cassandra’s for being so farseeing they prepared for the coming of…

        … Larry.

        1. Interesting.

          So you have a group of people who cheered No Awarding two female editors.

          And then you have the group that nominated (at least one) of said editors.

          Yes, clearly the latter are the ones trying to keep women out of SFF.

    1. I find it a bit depressing that an equally large chunk seems dead set convinced that the James Cameron’s AVATAR and Gene Roddenberry’s STAR TREK model of SF is 99% of what every SF novel and short story is like, and that the SP are really doing this to oppose the introduction of something different.

      Yeesh. As far back as the 40s and 50s, print SF had already gone into areas far wilder, more diverse, and more experimental. But now many believe it was all rayguns and super powered protags before 2010.

    2. http://www.fark.com/comments/8829618/After-all-controversy-2015-Hugo-Awards-were-finally-presented-last-night-Well-some-of-them-anyway-as-if-our-people-didnt-get-nominated-no-one-should-win-anything-crowd-succeeded-in-their-temper-tantrum?startid=98328835#c98329602

      Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy said “10 to 1, the Puppies would never nominate an action-heavy space opera where the protagonist was gay, or a monster-slaying story featuring disaffected urban black youth (okay, actually a story about gangbangers fighting vampires would be kind of awesome). Or a swashbuckling fantasy by an author with prominent liberal views.”

      In fact, the Puppies did nominate A Few Good Men in 2014 (it fell 8 votes short of making the ballot), MHI has gangster gnomes, and people here generally seem to like Eric Flint’s 1632 series (haven’t read it myself).

      But no, they know what Puppies are, and nothing like reality is allowed to interfere.

  21. I’m sort of miffed. Two casual SF/Fantasy friends who are acquaintances of mine were chattering away today, about how “George R.R. Martin saved the Hugos from GamerGate!”

    When I asked them what they were talking about, it became clear that for those outside the dedicated fandom who noticed anything going on at all, the reality never even had a chance to sink in. Nope. Just THE NARRATIVE of evil, evil, evil bad wrongfans trying to take lunch money from “victims”….though neither could give a clear description of who exactly these victims are.

    I guess the SJW crowd flooding the media with the exact same pack of lies every two weeks worked like a charm. 😛 At least as far as those outside looking in go.

    1. George R R Martin still hasn’t posted about it, but I’m curious to see what he says. Remember, he organizes the annual Hugo Losers Party. I’m curious if any of the people who were No Awarded went. (In a similar vein, I’d like to hear from any of the No Awarded nominees who went to the ceremony.) I also want to hear his take on the fact that there was loud applause every time No Award was announced. I found that utterly tasteless.

      1. @Frank Probst: I’m curious if any of the people who were No Awarded went

        Check out John C. Wright’s blog. He was there and wrote about it in length.

  22. I was happy to see a couple things I voted for won, and amused to see “BUTT HURT” take so many awards.

    The CHORFs still don’t get it, I’m realizing now that the reason they say SP was pro-white, pro-male, pro-Christian, pro-hetero, pro-cis, etc because they are so wrapped up in identity politics they cannot conceive of any other way to think. They just assume everyone else thinks the same way they do, and can’t even conceive of people who would think differently.

    When you explain that SP would happily vote for a black trans Communist feminist who publishes daily screeds demanding all white cis hetero males be confined to gulags, as long as it was a good book, they just cannot process the words. It’s like watching someone try to ride Desmond’s backwards bike — every time they see words like “merit” they fall off again. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

  23. I believe Vox’s first line ballot next year will be No Award across the board. Lets see how many category gets destroyed.

  24. Quote of the day goes to that Wired article, which cites GRRM giving Eric Flint an award for his “eloquence and rationality” in Flint’s Puppy posts. Usually for that level of disingenuousness one has to watch old Meet the Press tapes from the ’60s of conservative politicians serially lying about anything under the sun.

    It should be noted how Flint, Glyer, his commenting monkeys and Martin himself pretended there was no such thing as a gender feminist movement in SFF hostile towards whites and men even while they were falling from the fucking internet trees all around them. Mixon’s daffy acceptance speech where she mentioned the wonders of intersectionality and black lives matter possessed all the unexpected surprise of an answering machine or the droning of cicadas on a summer night. When the former president of the SFWA is lighting up L. Correia as a “misogynist” for using gendered slurs and C. Stross and Mixon are giving credence to the idea of the “unconscious bias of white men” there is more than a little gay feminism stinking up your stinking Hugos.

    This is all completely in keeping with about 19 kabillion quotes dedicated to affirmative action in SFF but, when criticized about the results of those initiatives in the form of awards nominations, the usual feminist answer is “what affirmative action, you woman-hating racist?”

    Whatever this mysterious ideology is which SFF’s brigade of do-gooders loudly advertise to themselves but forbid to all outsiders, it is plain pathological lying is a large part of it. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence the racist, anti-white, anti-male segregationist rag Lightspeed won once again. The first rule of this fuck of a cult is never talk about this fuck of a cult to outsiders. Just laugh and tell everyone they listen to too much Rush Limbaugh.

  25. One thing that’s confusing me is that I’m hearing that BOTH 4/6 and EPH passed. Is that accurate, and if so, how is that possible? Aren’t they mutually exclusive?

    1. Simple. Everyone nominates up to 4 items, and the ballot contains the top 6 as determined by EPH. Without 4/6, the numbers are 5 and 5.

        1. The goal of both of them is to reduce the power available to organized voting blocks. That’s much less of a problem for Tor, because while they do post an occasional “Here’s all the Hugo-eligible stuff we’ve published this year” list, and individuals such as the Nielsen Haydens enthuse about things they and their friends like, they’re not a concentrated voting block. Day and Torgersen (with up to five other people) picked their lists of five-or-so per category, but the open nominations for most categories had 20 or more nominations.

          1. Tor bloggers were crucial in signal boosting Ancillary Justice far above its literary merits and saying why: gender blindness, the fundamental credo of the two lesbian feminist bloggers who did the work – Alex MacFarlane and Liz Bourke. I’ll point out again Bourke’s column title “Sleeps With Monsters” is from a quote by gay feminist advocate Adrienne Rich who’s most famous essay is “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” I’ll leave it to you to figure out who Rich’s “monsters” are. These people don’t like men – say that in fact it’s the other way round – but have no quotes to back that up. But we have their quotes, and that anti-male attitude is now embedded at the Hugos where dipshits like the also gay Seanan McGuire complain about a “white dude parade” and Leckie about white cis dudes.

          2. During this time I researched Gamersgate and found a very damning video of Anita Sarkasian which completely debunked her alleged attacks and exposed her for the hate for profit bitch that she is. I found the link on wikipedia in the work cited references. A few weeks later I was asked for the link and low and behold the link in the reference was gone. Edited. Vanished. It took a while to find it on Youtube. What happens is people can go in and it takes a while for the material to be edited but not the sources. There are people who will go into the political topics, remove the sources, and then complain about the part they find offensive and then eliminate the posting to ensure that the left wing whacko message remains as the only voice sounding.

            These guys are organized and they are dirty. SJWs must be taken down. They come from the mindset that the end justifies the means.

  26. One of the more reasonable fans on a site I visit has asked if there is a regular location where Puppies review short fiction. Suggestions? I’d like to encourage the reasonable ones.

    1. By “reasonable ones” do you mean reasonable Puppies? I haven’t heard of any location for suggestions but you know, no one is going to get upset about the occasional “Have you seen this, it’s really good.” And the idea is sort of to get everyone involved in paying attention and nominating instead of taking what you’re given and voting.

      No telling how *that* will go next year, but maybe we ought to carry on as if the world is a reasonable place.

  27. I say NO AWARD next year’s Hugos. Across the board. The CHORFs want to burn it down rather than let outsiders in? Fine. I’ve got Thermite and I LOVE to set things on fire.
    Let’s face it, there’s no saving the Hugos. Stick a fork in it, it’s done. So, let’s make it CRISPY. Let’s make it WELL DONE. Let us darken the skies of our enemies with the ashes of the Hugos!

    1. If you’re trying to break the Hugos again, you have to try to break the nominations as well as the voting. That kind of worked this year, and can again next year, because changes to the Hugo rules have to be passed two years in a row, but the Evil Treating-People-Fairly* Overlords know you’re trying to do that this time.

      Last year’s Sad Puppy ballot-stuffing didn’t bother me; you teamed up to some works by your politically correct friends on the ballot (which is viewed as somewhat bad form, but not uncommon), so I ended up reading Correia’s Grimnoir trilogy (lightweight but lots of fun, thanks!) and a few horrendously bad works by Beale, Torgersen, et al. (There has to be better MilSF in the shorter forms, somewhere.) But this year you were trying to break the whole Hugo process, because apparently Not Winning made Puppies Sad, and that was just F’ing rude.

      (*That is what Social Justice is about, after all.)

      1. As with all you SJW’s attempted redefinitions, “treating people fairly” has never been what the Social Justice movement is about. Other than that, your post is pretty much content-free.

      2. “Social Justice” these days has strayed FAR afield of “Treating-People-Fairly”. If it was just “Treating-People-Fairly” it would be OK in my book. Now day’s it’s more about control and screwing over anyone who disagrees with them. Brad Torgersen is a primary example, he was declared a racist on national media because of his disagreement with these people who are interested in so-called “Social Justice”. Turns out, he has (by all accounts) a wonderful marriage to a wonderful woman (who also happens to be black). No racism there. There was never any indication of racism, they never even bothered to look for any (or they might have noticed his wife standing there).

        That’s not justice, social or otherwise. That’s a group of people who have let their political ideals and their hatred over-ride their honesty and self-professed values.

      3. Actually “social justice” as defined by SFF’s freedom fighters is built around the core concept of “compulsory heterosexuality” and the rejection of binary gender determining societal roles. That’s no surprise since our freedom fighters have adopted gay feminism as their Holy Grail. All four Hugo winners of 2014 reflected this: Leckie: genderblindness, Stross: gender dysmorphia, Kowal: Lady astronaut, Chu: gayness.

    1. They seem to have no problems winning the Benjamin awards vs all the SJW crap combined. Could it be that more sci-fi fans like our stuff and wrote off the Hugos?

  28. Lol at this. Suck it up buddy, it’s called democracy. Surprise surprise, real fans didn’t agree with your clique’s attempt to rig the awards. Next year, leave the Hugos to those who deserve them.

    1. So we’re back to the ‘you’re not real fans so we can rig the results and screw over worthy people because it’s all your fault we’re abusing you’ argument.

        1. They just oscillate between arguments. From ‘it’s your fault because you’re not real fans’ to ‘it’s your fault because slate’ to ‘it’s your fault because Straw Larry is a jerk’ on loop. It was a return to argument rather than return of person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *