74
75

A Fan Writer Explains Why He Turned Down a Hugo Nomination This Year (blackgate.com)

Stalking_Goat が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]theyawner 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Okay, wow. This is honestly a great (albeit overly long) counter point, and I'm only half-way through. continues reading

I find this comment particularly problematic:

As for people’s opinions on slates and so forth, all I can say is that I respect everyone’s right to feel however they like about them. We didn’t break the rules, we don’t make the rules, we merely play by them.

As if the more important part of the Hugos is to win them in any way possible, without regard to the quality of work.

[–][削除されました]  (11子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]weezer3989https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7190387 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Please source this comment. I've heard it over and over again the past day and not once has anyone been able to back up this claim. Give at least one example of an organized group of authors laying out an entire slate of approved nominations and encouraging people to vote for it not on merit, but because of some ideology.

    [–]ZiGraves 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    I think they mean that previously, some authors like Scalzi have put together lists of works which are eligible for nomination and had recommendation threads on their blogs where fans could discuss what they feel should be nominated/ voted for and why. The size of the works lists and rec lists has varied, but it's never to my knowledge been a small and narrow slate with a specific ideological push behind it.

    You also get content creators saying to their fans "Hey! I have this eligible work, you could vote for me! Also my friend published this other eligible work, so you could vote for that, too!", which, for a creator with a very large following, can result in a big vote push for that one specific work, but is again not a narrow category-by-category voting list

    This is, to my mind, quite different from putting together a very narrow and targeted slate of specific works across each category for the purposes of gaming the voting system, which is what Torgerson and Vox Day are doing with their Sad/ Rabid Puppies campaigns, but the Puppies are treating eligibility & rec lists or personal writer requests as no different whatsoever.

    [–]jetpack_operation 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah...most people putting forth the "SCALZI DID IT" argument seem to be missing the point - Scalzi featured his OWN work that was eligible and then supplemented his list with books that he liked for the categories where he didn't qualify or in addition to his own work. He was literally "pimping" his own work (the posts in question had something like that in the titles, if I'm remembering things from 7 years ago correctly). Very different than a ideologically charged slate.

    [–]learhpa 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    but the Puppies are treating eligibility & rec lists or personal writer requests as no different whatsoever.

    I have come to suspect that this is deliberate - that they know the difference but believe that they can mislead people into not noticing the difference.

    [–]Bergmaniac 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Of course it's deliberate. The Puppies aren't stupid and besides this has been pointed to them like a hundred times before but they keep ignoring it.

    [–]Zefrem23 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    They're not ignoring it. They're just being open about something that has been happening (to a lesser or greater degree, depending on whose blog you read) for the past two decades. They don't see anything wrong with "slates", they just made theirs public. And it's not ideologically narrow, certainly not the Sad Puppies slate, anyway. Vox Day's Rabid Puppies slate is another story, but that seems like bandwagon-jumping to me anyway.

    [–]Bergmaniac 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    They're not ignoring it. They're just being open about something that has been happening (to a lesser or greater degree, depending on whose blog you read) for the past two decades.

    No, they claim it has been happening without any evidence. has it happened at some point? Most likely. But so far nobody has presented any real evidence for the claims that Tor or whoever have secretly been totally controlling the awards for decades.

    Besides, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

    They don't see anything wrong with "slates", they just made theirs public.

    Well, that's the problem. Because organising a slate is wrong, no matter if they do it publicly or not. I didn't vote this year, but if I had, I'd have been basically robbed of my vote because a bunch of people organised to prevent the majority from having an influence on the nomination. A minority of 300-400 or so screwed over the other 1700 voters.

    [–]Zefrem23 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You do understand that this is what an open voting system allows for, right? You can't just take your ball and go home because the outcome doesn't match your expectations. And nobody's saying that two wrongs make a right; now that open voting slates have been exposed as a way of going about voting, either more slates will appear, or slate voting will be banned for 2017's awards and some other mechanism will be put in place. But these awards are awards voted for by fans, and who should get to say which fans vote? If you say, well, ALL fans should vote, then you should be encouraging more registrations. If, however, you feel that only small group of fans (who by Teresa Neilsen Hayden's own admission believe they are somehow the "only true fans": “The Hugos don’t belong to the set of all people who read the genre; they belong to the worldcon, and the people who attend and/or support it. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.”) then it's hardly inclusive, is it?

    [–]Bergmaniac 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The Hugos do belong to the Worldcon. I don't get why everyone is so up in arms with TNH stating this obvious fact. I am not a member so the award doesn't belong to me in any way. Which doesn't mean TNH won't welcome people who become Worldcon members and participate in the voting without trying to game the system.

    [–]weezer3989https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7190387 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They're just being open about something that has been happening (to a lesser or greater degree, depending on whose blog you read) for the past two decades.

    Please, give proof of this statement. I've seen that claim made over and over again since the noms were released and not once has a shred of evidence been shown that anyone has been controlling the ballot for decades.

    [–]historymaking101 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is exactly the case.