On Hugos and the No-Award Option

The rules don't explicitly forbid it!

The rules don’t explicitly forbid it!

Winning the Hugo requires winning a two-stage process of voting. First a work is one of five winners of the nomination stage, and then one of those five wins the final stage.

The Puppy-nominated works did not legitimately win the first round of voting; therefore it is impossible for them to legitimately win the Hugos. Therefore, I intend to vote “no award” over any slate-nominated work, including works I personally enjoyed.

Imagine a race that’s in two stages. In stage one, the athletes run an obstacle course, each in their own lane, leaping over hurdles. The athletes who make it through the obstacle course fastest then compete in a footrace to determine the winner.

The Puppies noticed that there’s no rule explicitly forbidding spectators knocking down hurdles, and so they knocked down the hurdles in their favorite athlete’s lanes. And of course, those athletes ran the obstacle course the fastest.

Now we’re at the start line of the second stage. And now the puppies are telling me that how these athletes ended up reaching the second stage of the race doesn’t matter.

With all due respect, ARE YOU FRAKKING KIDDING ME?

This entry posted in In the news. Bookmark the permalink. 

17 Responses to On Hugos and the No-Award Option

  1. 1
    RonF says:

    The Puppy-nominated works did not legitimately win the first round of voting;

    How so?

    Imagine a race that’s in two stages. In stage one, the athletes run an obstacle course, each in their own lane, leaping over hurdles. The athletes who make it through the obstacle course fastest then compete in a footrace to determine the winner.

    The Puppies noticed that there’s no rule explicitly forbidding spectators knocking down hurdles, and so they knocked down the hurdles in their favorite athlete’s lanes.

    This doesn’t look like a particularly applicable analogy to me. Unless I am very much mistaken, one author recommended a group of works by other authors for people to vote for. Has this never occurred before? Have noted authors or critics never published a list of people or works that they thought worthy of being voted for? That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW, I have no idea myself.

    And I don’t recall reading how they prevented anyone else from voting for whoever they wanted to. Seems to me that the analogy here is that the SP’s helped someone get to the starting line of the obstacle course. But they still had to run it.

  2. 2
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    I’m curious, Amp: Do you think that is an accurate analogy which reasonably relates to the subject? Or is it more of a lobbying, exaggerated, version?

    I mean, lots of folks are stretching reality on both sides (the Puppy analogy would probably be something like “we ran the race, followed the rules, and they threw us out because we won”) but I can’t tell if you intend to be one of those people or not.

    Because, your analogy is off.

    Imagine a race that’s in two stages. In stage one, the athletes run an obstacle course, each in their own lane, leaping over hurdles. The athletes who make it through the obstacle course fastest then compete in a footrace to determine the winner.

    Well, no. It’s more like a standing-still beauty contest. The individual competitors bring what they bring to the table; they don’t have a whole lot to do with the outcome once they’re in the competition.

    The Puppies noticed that there’s no rule explicitly forbidding

    Sure. They might also have noticed that the “no rule” remained for some time after the behavior started, which reasonably suggests that the rule wouldn’t really be important.

    And they would probably claim that the rule is very difficult or impossible to understand, and therefore relatively meaningless. (It’s facile to come up with two wildly different analogies and say that they’re different. But can you define a line between “recommending a slate” and “recommending a group of people,” which is easily and realistically determinable prior to actual voting?)

    And they would also surely claim that everyone else is doing it anyway, which–depending on how good you get at defining the line–is possibly true.

    This is, clearly, the Big Issue. The thing that confuses me is that you seem to think it is so incredibly obvious, when it seems clearly to be on pretty murky ground where opinions can easily differ.

    spectators knocking down hurdles,

    These people are not spectators. Much as folks might wish they were. They’re participants, because the competition is actually between the judges and not really between the contestants. The concept of “unauthorized people interfering in a race” is plain old wrong.

    and so they knocked down the hurdles in their favorite athlete’s lanes.

    Well. not really.

  3. 3
    Pesho says:

    I think the analogy goes like this: The Puppies did knock down all the obstacles in their candidates’ lane, but are known for years to have claimed that their political adversaries have been knocking obstacles down, and placing extra obstacles in front of the Puppies’ favorites. Whether or not the Puppies have a point, and I can’t tell, because the smell of sour grapes is overpowering my senses, it is a fact that the Puppies are the first to throw an obstacle-removal party.

    As someone who is not particularly convinced that hurdle races are won by the best athletes, and who does not care whether his favorites win hurdle races, I’m just barely keeping an eye on the races, while not-so-covertly watching the stands for more interesting (and more pugilistic) contests that may develop.

    Disclaimer: I have just as much trouble stomaching some of what Swirsky and McIntyre write as I have with pretty much everything that Ringo and Card produce. I am not saying that Pratchett, Brust, Haldeman, Drake, and Leckie are apolitical and aren’t pushing a view of the world, it’s just that I, personally, can enjoy their works whether or not I agree with their politics.

  4. 4
    Patrick says:

    I find it incredibly frustrating that the moment “respect established social norms, you shouldn’t casually dismantle them, and you should take seriously the idea that their destruction will hurt people,” is at play in a context OTHER than defending bigotry, the conservatives all instantly abandon it. Come on guys. This is what you’re for. If you can’t be relied on here, we don’t need you.

  5. 5
    Ampersand says:

    I’m curious, Amp: Do you think that is an accurate analogy which reasonably relates to the subject? Or is it more of a lobbying, exaggerated, version?

    Obviously, I don’t think it’s a perfect one-to-one metaphor. But I do think it saliently illustrates my point, which is: The puppies can’t game the rules in the first part of a two-part competition, and then say “okay, now let’s everyone play fair (as we define it) for part two!”

    Earlier, you wrote:

    I am not explicitly saying that I cannot see any substantive difference between what Linus does, and what Lucy does, in this example.

    Permit me to follow up on this. What substantive differences do you see, precisely? Could you list a few of them (it’s okay to be brief, I don’t want to take up your time)?

    So you don’t have to scroll, here’s the example again:

    If Lucy says “I don’t think Hilary is the best candidate, so I’d advise people to vote for O’Malley,” that is not the same thing as Lucy forming a voting bloc or a political party. Because that’s not organizing.

    If Linus decides to organize a hundred people into supporting an anti-Hillary voting slate, and names his group “The Rabid Blankets,” that is organizing a political party (or at least a bloc voting organization).

  6. 6
    desipis says:

    Right Captain: Increase engines to 25%.
    Engineering: Err… captain?
    Left Captain: I concur, increase to 25%, we have an urgent mission.
    Right Captain: Yes, very urgent, we need more speed.
    Engineering: But captains, our lateral engines are configured with opposite thrust vectors.
    Left Captain: I don’t see how that matters, we must get to Venus faster. Engines to 50%.
    Right Captain: I think you mean Mars, but yes, we must go faster. 50%.
    Engineering: Captains, I must point out that increasing velocity won’t get us anywhere faster if we have a circular trajectory.
    Right Captain: Rubbish, we are running out of time. Increase engines to 75%, that’s an order.
    Left Captain: Yes, 75%, I concur with that order.
    Engineering: Captains, I MUST protest, at that speed we will spin out of control and the angular velocity will tear the ship apart!.
    Left Captain: That’s not my concern, this mission is important, now I’m giving you a direct order.
    Right Captain: Yes, the mission is very important, this is a direct order.
    Both Captains: FULL POWER!!!

    Narrator: Both captains successfully got themselves and their engines to their respective planets. However, it’s a great pity that the rest of the ship was scattered across the solar system.

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    Pesho, I agreed with your post, but – since “Swirsky” is a participant here – I think “I don’t like…” would be a lot more polite than “I have trouble stomaching.” Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t imagine going up to a writer – even one whose fiction I disliked – and saying “I can’t stomach your work” to their face, let alone doing it to them in their living room. It just seems rude.

    (Also, I’ve enjoyed some of Card’s novels, but that’s just me.)

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    That’s funny, Desipis, but I think it’s also too pessimistic. I think that the Hugos will manage to avoid being utterly destroyed by all the thrusting and bellowing from both sides. :-)

  9. 9
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ampersand says:

    If Lucy says “I don’t think Hilary is the best candidate, so I’d advise people to vote for O’Malley,” that is not the same thing as Lucy forming a voting bloc or a political party. Because that’s not organizing.

    Only because you wrote it that way.

    Let me illustrate with a chain:
    1) Lucy will tell you her opinion only if you directly ask, and won’t otherwise tell it to anyone else.
    2) Lucy talks to everyone who asks. 100 people ask.
    3) Lucy tells her opinion spontaneously, to 100 people.
    4) Lucy tells her opinion while having planned to do so, to 100 people.
    5) Lucy decides that she is going to influence the vote, and goes to tell her opinion to 100 people in an effort to do so.

    Now: These are all Lucy saying things. You are not Lucy. You are not omniscient. You may not even be one of the 100. You may not even know how many people Lucy is talking to in total, or how many conversations have happened to date.

    How do you distinguish between 2, 3, 4, and 5? And remember, you have to do it BEFORE those 100 people vote. You want to ban “organizing,” good luck. That isn’t the same thing as a ban on “anyone at all who may decide to vote for any people who anyone else organized in favor of”

    If Linus decides to organize a hundred people into supporting an anti-Hillary voting slate, and names his group “The Rabid Blankets,” that is organizing a political party (or at least a bloc voting organization).

    This is a tautology. Obviously, “deciding to organize” a group, and proceeding to do so, is properly called “organizing a group.” But I don’t see why you think that this proves anything one way or another.

    Imagine that you need to come up with a rule.
    then everyone will know the rule, and do what they will do.
    When it comes to complaints: Someone will give a generic description, and you get to be the judge; if you want to punish them, you can.

    Problem is, you don’t get to find out until after you deal out punishment whether the generic was “puppy fan complaining about actions of SMOF fan” or “SMOF fan complaining about actions of puppy fan.”

    In reality, this is a lot less obvious than you’re trying to make it. I think it will be really hard for you to come up with a rule which clearly bars behavior you DON’T want, without also barring behavior which–like Lucy–you DO want. At least, not unless you just want to invest a bunch of people with “because I say so” power, which rarely ends super well.

    I think your logical error is that you’re assuming your conclusion (i.e. that Lucy isn’t organizing and Linus is) rather than dealing with the marginal facts.

  10. 10
    nobody.really says:

    Now we’re at the start line of the second stage. And now the puppies are telling me that how these athletes ended up reaching the second stage of the race doesn’t matter.

    With all due respect, ARE YOU FRAKKING KIDDING ME?

    Amp, Amp, Amp — look, the Iranians have been running their presidential elections this way for decades now. If it’s good enough for Iran, well darn it, I just don’t know what your problem is.

    Besides, aren’t you just a hypocrite, organizing block voting for Noah Ward? I mean, you could at least recommend something he’s written.

  11. 11
    Ampersand says:

    G&W:

    1) Most of your argument assumes that I am calling for slate voting to be “banned,” and I favor a regime in which “complaints” are made and a “judge” can “punish” people, and the like.

    But I have not called for those things; I don’t favor those things; I am against those things.

    As far as long-term rule changes go, I favor switching from the current “first past the post” election system used in stage one of the Hugos, to one of many possible election systems that could be used in stage one, which would diffuse the power of slate voting. There are several possibilities discussed here.

    2) Point well taken about my use of a tautology. I should have phrased that more carefully. Let me try again, this time stealing the phrasing from Brad Templeton:

    A group of around 200 Steampunk fans, upset at the way the awards have ignored steampunk, hold an internal poll on the best steampunk of the year. From that poll, they pick the best 4 or 5 called “SP3” and recommend that all their members nominate exactly that slate. They also suggest that other steampunk fans who are not regular members join the convention to express this view.

    vs

    Locus Magazine posting the annual Locus recommended reading list.

    Again, do you acknowledge any substantive difference between these two acts, and if so, what are those differences?

  12. 12
    Jacob Schmidt says:

    The main difference seems to be between what, exactly, is modulating votes. Ostensibly, what one most enjoyed was what one voted for. Personal recommendations didn’t really change that. Setting up a voting slate for political reasons changes the modulation. Now, instead of votes being based on what one most enjoyed, they’re based on what one’s group would find most convenient. Now the modulation is tribal: its based on whoever can rally the most troops, not which book motivates the most people to vote for it based on their enjoyment of it.

    Which brings me to:

    But can you define a line between “recommending a slate” and “recommending a group of people,” which is easily and realistically determinable prior to actual voting?

    The modulation. If the modulation is political, if the first thing you ask in building the list of recommendations is “does this fit into a certain political category,” it’s probably a slate. If the modulation is personal enjoyment, if the first thing you ask in building the list of recommendations is “did I really enjoy this,” it’s probably a run of the mill recommendation.

    The blatant tribalism is another clue. Saying “You should vote for these books because they were really good” is a run of the mill recommendation. Saying “You should vote for these books because they agree with your politics” is probably a voting slate.

    Soliciting new voters is probably another significant difference. If changing the reason for votes from personal enjoyment to politics gets new people to vote, then those new people are voting for politics; personal enjoyment is secondary.

    Yeah, there’s no rule against it, but it’s a pretty stark change in the behaviour of the system. Winning, now, tells us something different than it did before. Winning now stills means that more people voted for you, but why they voted and what we can extrapolate from that victory is different. At best, it tells us what was the most widely enjoyed work out of a certain political category. More likely, the people in charge of building the slate nudge it in the direction of who they want to win.

    I mean, this is rather obvious in the wake of things. While ostensibly the voting slate was based on community recommendations, most of the voting slate didn’t have any recommendations from within the community. These people weren’t voting for what they thought was the best.

  13. 13
    Ampersand says:

    Saying “You should vote for these books because they agree with your politics” is probably a voting slate.

    Or “you should vote for these books because doing so will really piss off the other tribe.”

  14. 14
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ampersand says:
    Most of your argument assumes that I am calling for slate voting to be “banned,” and I favor a regime in which “complaints” are made and a “judge” can “punish” people, and the like.

    Huh. You argue against it. You speak out against the people who did it. You argue on multiple forums that it is illegitimate, and (might not have been you) a perversion of the process. You argue in favor of “no Awarding” people on the slate–hey, this post is all about it.

    If I inaccurately grokked the precise set of rules that’s my bad. But it would be very strange for you to focus, now, on minor differences here.

    Anyway.

    A group of around 200 Steampunk fans, upset at the way the awards have ignored steampunk, hold an internal poll on the best steampunk of the year. From that poll, they pick the best 4 or 5 called “SP3” and recommend that all their members nominate exactly that slate. They also suggest that other steampunk fans who are not regular members join the convention to express this view.

    vs

    Locus Magazine posting the annual Locus recommended reading list.

    Sure. Those are different.

    The locus list is so large that it isn’t intended to be a recommendation of anything in particular, and includes a lot of different stuff that isn’t eligible for the same award (like horror ,etc.)

    Again: Your choice of analogies which are really different from each other doesn’t actually demonstrate that the things, generally put, are really different from each other.

    You need to select analogies which are harder to distinguish. Then you can actually learn something about how you distinguish them. Here are some.

    1) A group of around 200 fans, upset at the way the awards have ignored their preferred genre, hold an internal poll on the best stuff of the year. From that poll, they pick the best 4 or 5 called “SP3” and recommend that all their members nominate exactly that slate.(*)

    2) An incredibly well known and widely published author, who may have more worldwide exposure and influence than most (all?) of the fans put together, posts his own recommendations for that genre, on his widely-published blog.

    3) A well known editor who is respected in their field and who is presumed to have a lot of knowledge has a lot of early conversations and tells her preferences to a lot of underlings and associates. But she’s high-placed, connected, and well respected. And so are a lot of her underlings and associates. Her preferences have an unusual effect: her views end up influencing hundreds if not thousands of people.

    4) Politically-minded “more ___ in fiction” groups meet. They don’t openly come out with a written list. But they certainly make sure people and editors know who is in their group. Through conversations they know what stories people like, and exert social pressure to support those they like, and oppose those they don’t. Some of their members or supporters write posts to promote their mission. They, too, influence a lot of folks.

    Me, I don’t see much of a substantive difference between those. There are differences to be sure, but not incredibly important ones.

  15. 15
    Ampersand says:

    G&W:

    I chose the Locus example specifically because I’ve seen many puppies argue that their slate was no different than the Locus list.

    Without getting into the agree/disagree of your specific examples, I agree that there is no simple bright line between “a slate” and “not a slate,” and that instead it’s a spectrum. I’ve been saying that all along.

    However, if we choose a voting system that is mathematically designed to favor reflecting the views of the widest number of Hugo voters, rather than using a “first past the post” system that rewards unison (or near-unison) voting, then that won’t just dilute the influence of open slates; it’ll also dilute the influence of any other slates that allegedly exist, including informal and unintended slates.

  16. 16
    Ampersand says:

    Several posts moved to a new thread for discussing the Hugo nominated works without discussing the puppy controversy.

  17. 17
    Jacob Schmidt says:

    Or “you should vote for these books because doing so will really piss off the other tribe.”

    Indeed. I wasn’t trying to write a iron-clad definition. I was trying to write up some general characteristics I would expect a voting slate to have. And yeah, I can’t draw the line clearly, but that, to me, seems like an obvious red herring; the puppies aren’t near any sort of line.

    However, if we choose a voting system that is mathematically designed to favor reflecting the views of the widest number of Hugo voters, rather than using a “first past the post” system that rewards unison (or near-unison) voting, then that won’t just dilute the influence of open slates; it’ll also dilute the influence of any other slates that allegedly exist, including informal and unintended slates.

    I have, since childhood, been confused as to why any voting system beyond almost trivial cases used “first past the post” measurement. Very simple thought experiments expose some glaring flaws.