SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So, last night the SJW types over at the Hugo awards decided they'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground than give out an award based on what the readers like instead of social justice reasons:
The members of the World Science Fiction Society rejected the slate of finalists in five categories, giving No Award in Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form. This equals the total number of times that WSFS members have presented No Award in the entire history of the Hugo Awards, most recently in 1977.
Here are a few of the people on the #SadPuppies slate that should be quite surprised to learn that they were denied a chance at an award for being white males when they wake up this morning: Rajnar Vajra, Larry Correia, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson, and Amanda Green.
takyon: Here are in-depth explanations of the Hugo Awards controversy.
Previously: "Rightwing lobby has 'broken' Hugo awards" Says George R.R. Martin (240 comments)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:23AM
> Here's an idea for the Hugos. They should vote on the current year's winners and next year's nominations during the same convention.
They've already fixed the problem, it's called "E Pluribus Hugo" - you get a single divisible vote which means you can spend the entire vote on one entry, or divide it up among multiple entries. So if you want to nominate book A and book B each gets half a vote. That makes it much harder to pack the list of nominations, while still letting people vote for more than one work if they really want to nominate more than one.
The problem is that, due to hugo constitutional rules, it won't go into effect until year after next, so the 2016 awards will still be subject to the same exploit. Whether the puppies will still give enough of a shit to shit on the nominations remains to be seen — it will be a presidential election year so much less outside agitators like Breitbart plus the emotional impact of being so thoroughly repudiated by the general electorate this time may cause the group to lose momentum.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @06:33AM
From Wired:
I don't see momentum that depends on paid dues being sustained for very long.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday August 24 2015, @03:07PM
They've already fixed the problem, it's called "E Pluribus Hugo" - you get a single divisible vote which means you can spend the entire vote on one entry, or divide it up among multiple entries. So if you want to nominate book A and book B each gets half a vote. That makes it much harder to pack the list of nominations, while still letting people vote for more than one work if they really want to nominate more than one.
You say vote, but it's a change to the nominating process,not the voting one. This is an important distinction because it means there is no damage control for bloc voting -- such as what was supposedly used to block awards in so many categories this year -- still. All this does is make nomination control require more people -- interesting because, since nominations have a fee attached, the people in charge of the rules have financial motivation to ride the wave of drama to enact these changes.
It also seems like you could still bloc nominate a single entry, then also vote in lockstep, and still control the process. The only (arguable) improvement is that, again, it's more expensive. That doesn't seem like "fixed" to me, even assuming it passes.
(I haven't followed this debacle closely and may have missed something when researching what "E Pluribus Hugo" is, so corrections or clarifications are welcome.)