the Hugo awards and sad puppies.

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

so I feel like this is interesting topic to discuss. first some background summarized and unbiased as possible(from what I know).

so a few years ago a bunch of people decided that the Hugo awards were biased towards the left, and decided to form a group called sad puppy. The idea of the group was to stuff the ballot from their poll candidates. the group didn't get much traction until the gamergate thing happened (which I will not get into) and a website called vox start the campaign them. a separate group called rabid puppies also emerged (which I've heard is more crazy than the other group.) and the ballots got completely Fucked because of it.

basically the hugo turned into a pissing contest between political ideals.

I'm on the opinion that both sides can go fuck themselves. while I can sympathize with the puppies intentions this is probably the worst way to go about it. They pushed some true garbage (Zombie nation for best graphic novel, seriously?! I will never let you live that down) and probably pushed people out of the Hugo nominations That probably deserved a spot. on the other hand fuck the people who voted no award because they were pushed by the puppies, some of them probably did deserve to win but you Rob them out of spite. hopefully the Hugos can fix this make a better voting system for this.

for the full list of puppies: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/sad-puppies-3-the-2015-hugo-slate/

thoughts from George R.R. Martin: http://grrm.livejournal.com/439207.html

so what do you think of the whole ordeal.

ps. sory I R pooor speling

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I think this award is serving its purpose to the letter.

People who cares votes, and book(? I am unsure what they are awarded to) gets awarded.

To me, the award system's intention is crowd-pleaser. This has worked before, and I think it still does. Don't fix what ain't broken.

 

[Zontar]

I'd say this is a case of grey-and-black morality to be honest. Say what you will about the Sad Puppies, politics isn't something which connects them (unless you consider 80% of the political spectrum to be one thing) while those they where pushing back against did have politics be what united them, a very small, specific brand of politics at that.

I mean for god sake, in one category Sarkeesian got 6% of the vote for her work, despite having contributed literally nothing to either of the genre which explicitly are what the Hugos cover. My SG1/BSG crossover fan fiction gives my life's work in the two genres more merit then some of the people nominated, and that speaks volumes for how much politics and personal belief outweighs merit and quality of work in the eyes of the people the Sad Puppies exist in opposition to.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I'd say this is a case of grey-and-black morality to be honest. Say what you will about the Sad Puppies, politics isn't something which connects them (unless you consider 80% of the political spectrum to be one thing) while those they where pushing back against did have politics be what united them, a very small, specific brand of politics at that.

I mean for god sake, in one category Sarkeesian got 6% of the vote for her work, despite having contributed literally nothing to either of the genre which explicitly are what the Hugos cover. My SG1/BSG crossover fan fiction gives my life's work in the two genres more merit then some of the people nominated, and that speaks volumes for how much politics and personal belief outweighs merit and quality of work in the eyes of the people the Sad Puppies exist in opposition to.

two wrongs do not make a right. It's not okay for you to do dirty shit when you criticize other people of that dirty shit. And no I will not accept it was for the greater good or necessary evil this isn't a war it's a award ceremony. And It's will not buy "it's a necessary push back." When you get crap like zombie nation(I will never let them live that down) on their regardless of quality ,and probably pushing people who deserved to be on it just to stick it to your enemies how can you claim the moral high ground.

I really hate the "but they're the bad guys or because I'm right" justification for groups like this. it's everything wrong with the Internet age.

so to me it's Black and black with some decent people on both sides. (Or would that be Grey and grey)

 

[Fox12]

I could maybe sympathize, if I thought Sad Puppies had a case.

The thing is, they claim that their trying to support talented writers that don't get any attention. And the creator himself lamented never getting a nomination, claiming that it was due to politics. So I read their stuff. It's utter garbage. None of them can write. If they don't get nominated, it has nothing to do with politics. I think they're just bitter, especially the creator.

It doesn't help that they're complaints are embarrassingly stupid. The creator just complained about how he'd rather have flash gordon style adventure serials, as opposed to anything high minded. He sounded like a simpleton. Meanwhile he formed a slate of writers, and tried to push through a block voting system to support certain writers based upon things other then writing merit. So whose obsessed with politics here? He's a bitter, failed writer that's taking his frustrations out on the establishment.

The best that can be said is that they aren't actively sexist/racist/insane like the Rabid Puppies and Vox Populi.

 

[secretkeeper12]

I could maybe sympathize, if I thought Sad Puppies had a case.

The thing is, they claim that their trying to support talented writers that don't get any attention. And the creator himself lamented never getting a nomination, claiming that it was due to politics. So I read their stuff. It's utter garbage. None of them can write. If they don't get nominated, it has nothing to do with politics. I think they're just bitter, especially the creator.

It doesn't help that they're complaints are embarrassingly stupid. The creator just complained about how he'd rather have flash gordon style adventure serials, as opposed to anything high minded. He sounded like a simpleton. Meanwhile he formed a slate of writers, and tried to push through a block voting system to support certain writers based upon things other then writing merit. So whose obsessed with politics here? He's a bitter, failed writer that's taking his frustrations out on the establishment.

The best that can be said is that they aren't actively sexist/racist/insane like the Rabid Puppies and Vox Populi.

Sounds an awful lot like the story behind Conservapedia (a "conservative alternative" to Wikipedia). Apparently an open source project in which everyone has an equal voice is biased. If liberal ideas consistently show up, maybe it's because there's something to them?

I'll never get people who respond to perceived bias with actual bias. It's like affirmative action, except there isn't an economic justification for it. Just a bunch of whining, frankly.

 

[Zontar]

Sounds an awful lot like the story behind Conservapedia (a "conservative alternative" to Wikipedia). Apparently an open source project in which everyone has an equal voice is biased. If liberal ideas consistently show up, maybe it's because there's something to them?

I'll never get people who respond to perceived bias with actual bias. It's like affirmative action, except there isn't an economic justification for it. Just a bunch of whining, frankly.

Actually in the case of Wikipedia there is an actual bias, to the point where there has been a very large amount of behind the scene drama over the past year where countless users have been topic banned or outright banned. In fact I think the past 12 months have seen more topic or total bans of Wikipedia entries then the rest of the site's history combined.

When it comes to anything political Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Statistics yes, but not for things like politics. One need only see the sudden and unexplained deletion of the Cultural Marxism page (a page which had been around for years and was as well sourced as any other) or the fact that some topics are so bad even Encyclopaedia Dramatica has been found to be a more reliable source of information. I think it tells you something when a site which exists as a literal documentation of the insanity the Chans come up with can, at times, be an objectively more reliable source on some matters.

Sure it isn't like Conservopidia isn't biased, on the contrary it's worst then Wikipedia by a long shot, but saying Wikidepia is a reliable source is like saying RationalWiki is rational, just because the site's creators wanted that to be the case doesn't change the fact that it isn't. At best Wikipedia is a source for sources, but nothing on it should be taken as fact without checking and double checking its references.

 

[Lord Garnaat]

I'm still a little confused as to why the "Sad Puppies" thing turned into a big hullabaloo. If my understanding (and the above description) is correct, then the Hugo Awards are centered around a large mass of people who collectively vote for several books/graphic novels/etc. to be nominated for awards. They are asked for the books they would like to be nominated, and then which they would like to win. It sounds to me as though these Sad Puppies people were just doing that: supporting books that they liked, and not voting for others. It doesn't sound any different from what people involved in this award were doing already, so what's the issue if a lot of people push for certain books? Isn't that the point? Unless there are rules against forming voting blocs of which I'm not aware.

 

[Cryselle]

The big freakout had less to do with the Sad Puppies than it did with the Rabid Puppies. The Sad Puppies have some good points, though I disagree with their methods of trying to address them. But the Rabid Puppies are basically just Vox Day shitting on things for his own amusement again.

Yes, that Vox Day, we all remember him right?

His involvement in the whole thing is so distasteful to people that some of the people that were nominated by his push voluntarily declined their nomination because they didn't want to be tainted by association.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

The big freakout had less to do with the Sad Puppies than it did with the Rabid Puppies. The Sad Puppies have some good points, though I disagree with their methods of trying to address them. But the Rabid Puppies are basically just Vox Day shitting on things for his own amusement again.

Yes, that Vox Day, we all remember him right?

His involvement in the whole thing is so distasteful to people that some of the people that were nominated by his push voluntarily declined their nomination because they didn't want to be tainted by association.

This was important information I didn't really know about, thank you for that.

 

[Cryselle]

It's pretty important to keep in mind that the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are two completely separate groups, because the last thing we really need is another never ending discussion on what a movement is actually about.

The Sad Puppies (at least claim to) believe that how socially progressive a work is gets more attention than whether or not a work is good or not, and just want the best works to win the awards. They say they're not against socially progressive works if they're well written. Whether you believe them or not is mostly a factor of whether you think the works that they pushed to have nominated were legitimately better pieces or not (I note you aren't too impressed by Zombie Nation).

The Rabid Puppies... well... they want what Vox Day wants. If you don't know the guy, even a fairly cursory search on him will give you a fairly good idea of his views on things like minorities and women.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Whether you believe them or not is mostly a factor of whether you think the works that they pushed to have nominated were legitimately better pieces or not (I note you aren't too impressed by Zombie Nation).

The Rabid Puppies... well... they want what Vox Day wants. If you don't know the guy, even a fairly cursory search on him will give you a fairly good idea of his views on things like minorities and women.

I will never let them live that down, every time they say they want to push quality entertainment into the Hugos And not to spite there competition I was say "like zombie nation". seriously look at it doesn't deserve to be in that spot.

also what candidates did the rabid puppies push? just curious.

 

[Ricardo Lima]

How good the book or the work in the slate should come first. Its not whats happening.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm on the opinion that both sides can go fuck themselves.

Pretending there are two equivalent sides and chastising both is pretty much the worst approach you can take.

Sounds an awful lot like the story behind Conservapedia (a "conservative alternative" to Wikipedia). Apparently an open source project in which everyone has an equal voice is biased. If liberal ideas consistently show up, maybe it's because there's something to them?

I'll never get people who respond to perceived bias with actual bias. It's like affirmative action, except there isn't an economic justification for it. Just a bunch of whining, frankly.

But that's the thing. Conservapedia doesn't even go after "liberal' ideas, it goes after ideas it doesn't like. Yes, some of these ideas are liberal, but some of them aren't, and actually being liberal isn't grounds for an accusation of liberal "bias." You nailed it in the next bit when you talk about perceived bias. This is not like me, so it's liberal bias. Conservapedia locks down shit that shouldn't even be controversial but is somehow teh liberal bias.

And yes, that does sound an awful lot like what happened here. You could replace "liberal" with "witch" and have much the same effect.

Actually, I demand people start accusing "us"[footnote]because somehow, I'm always part of these conspiracies[/footnote] of witchcraft. It's so much cooler than being a liberal.

 

[EternallyBored]

It's pretty important to keep in mind that the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are two completely separate groups, because the last thing we really need is another never ending discussion on what a movement is actually about.

The Sad Puppies (at least claim to) believe that how socially progressive a work is gets more attention than whether or not a work is good or not, and just want the best works to win the awards. They say they're not against socially progressive works if they're well written. Whether you believe them or not is mostly a factor of whether you think the works that they pushed to have nominated were legitimately better pieces or not (I note you aren't too impressed by Zombie Nation).

The Rabid Puppies... well... they want what Vox Day wants. If you don't know the guy, even a fairly cursory search on him will give you a fairly good idea of his views on things like minorities and women.

Sad puppies still had some issues with brigading categories, attempting to load some with only their candidates and using entries of questionable quality to push out anything they viewed as "too" progressive. On the other hand, some of their opponents were rabidly opposed and were making their own efforts to try and block any nominees by anyone associated with the Sad Puppies regardless of popularity or quality of the suggestion. Still, up until this year, the Hugos were at least still functioning despite the infighting, and more rational heads were at least discussing the issue in an interesting and intelligent matter.

Then the rabid puppies came along and basically tried to destroy the entire award ceremony by turning the whole thing into yet another "SJW vs. anti-SJW" whine fest and loading entire categories with only their own nominees. This will likely also sour a lot of people towards the Sad Puppies as well, different groups or not, a lot of Hugo followers I know have lost all patience for both the Sad and rabid puppy groups.

The rules are changing though, they've got an upcoming change that should prevent this kind of category rigging from working in the future, suggesting whole slates will reduce the weight each individual entry has per suggestion. I forget if the rules are changing in time for the next ceremony or the ceremony after, but they should make it much harder for crap like what happened this year to occur.

 

[Azure23]

Still, after all of this, it's important to note what happened.

The awards went off with out a hitch, some very deserving people received rockets for their contributions to sci fi and fantasy, and all that big hullabaloo did was result in a few more no awards than usual. In the end the sads and rabids showed they didn't really have the popular opinion behind them, the sads because their argument didn't have much teeth to begin with and the rabids because Day massively overestimates how motivational "sticking it to the dirty sjw's" is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Hugo's voting and nomination process is a popularity contest, for better or worse. There's no secret council of liberal scholars deciding who gets a Hugo, there's just the people voting, it's partly why the sads and rabids met with success in pushing their slates. It's also partly the reason why they lost, there will always be more people who vote for the actual awards than people who push nominations.

 

[Redd the Sock]

The award itself isn't something I pay attention to. It's all favoritism, politics and personal bias, no matter what award is being given, which to me reduces just about any award from the Oscars to webstie favorites mean jack and shit overall. I've long past given up thinking that attempts at neutral judgement that can be explained if the decision is in question are or will be a part of such things again.

Seeing this all as a popularity contest, I don't see the sad puppies as having done anything they really shouldn't have done. I may question their taste in literature, but what they did really was the point of a popularity vote: get your name out and get others to support you. The other side, I'm not sure which I liked less, the smear campaign taken from political attack ads (don't build yourself, tear down your opponent) once they were seen as a threat, or the real life version of disconnecting before you lose an online match (if I can't win, neither can you) by voting no award. I'm not sure how this can be seen as adult behavior. I expect adults to say may the best person win and lose with grace.

Guess it's just one more reason to avoid awards shows, and probably anything that wins one.

 

[Chris Mosher]

I am sure there is something to an insiderish issue with deciding nominees and winners. But that happens when a small group decides on awards. Echo chambers happen and things swing back and forth. I have no issues with the puppies per say, especially if it encourages a broader group to join up with the voting as a broader and more diverse group will help bring a more level playing field to the awards.
On the other hand, I read books by Jim Butcher and Kevin J Anderson because Correia and Torgerson highlighted these two authors as people who were noteworthy for never having nominations for best novel, while Hoyt pointed out Scalzi's Redshirts as reading like fan fiction. Ultimately i was not impress with either author or Correia's own Warbound novel. They weren't bad they just never reached beyond being okay and i actually enjoyed Redshirts more.