Re: Fwd: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters

You have to allow more than one "No Award" vote. Maybe not all in
position 1, but even without bloc voting there hasn't been a single
year of all the years I've been paying attention where every nominated
work actually deserved to be considered (in my opinion). I like the
option, even if I've never used it in position 1 before. (I didn't
vote this year. ^_^ )

I do like the idea of expanding the short list, and perhaps
restricting the nominating slate from five to just half of the short
list's length.

I also agree with those who've said the categories themselves need to
be revamped. It is no longer 1953.

But "block voting to combat block voting "seems a bit unfair. I mean,
what else would you do? Would you complain about organized law
enforcement opposing organized crime? (I know going afield, here.) It
just seems to me that fans reacting en masse against an attempt to
hijack the award is not the moral equivalent of attempting to hijack
the award.
-- 
Helge

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Barry Haworth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Replied to Dennis instead of to the group like I meant to.
>
> (Sorry Dennis, you're getting this twice).
>
> Barry
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Barry Haworth <[email protected]>
> Date: 27 August 2015 at 13:29
> Subject: Re: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters
> To: Dennis Fischer <[email protected]>
>
>
> I was vaguely aware of the Sad Puppy business earlier this year, but
> the results in this year's voting are very disturbing. Not so much
> because of the puppies, but because of the scorched earth reaction to
> them.
>
> As I undertand it, the puppies selected a bunch of works to promote,
> and had enough numbers to get puppy nominations exclusively in some
> categories.  Turns out this isn't hard - the number of people who
> actually vote in the Hugos isn't too big (more on this later), and
> since nominations are first past the post a couple of hundred people
> voting for the same work is enough to get it in, past the unfocussed
> voting of others voting for many, many other possible works.
>
> Which is a problem which needs to be fixed, definitely, but so far
> though somewhat dubious it is nothing illegal - nothing that any other
> organised campaign might not do. It is the reaction that rankles with
> me.  In the figures I have seen, of the 5,950 people who voted this
> year, overthan 3,000 - more than half - voted "no award" in all
> puppy-only categories.  This implies that the only reason they were
> voting at all was to deny awards to people with whom they disagreed.
> Frankly, it is very bad for the genre, and for the Hugos, if the
> biggest voter turnout of all time is because of one group of people
> trying to deny a voice to another group.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> What really surprised me, though, was how few votes are involved.
> This year's 5,950 seemed on the low side for something as prestigious
> as the Hugos (and the fact that it is 5,950 out of 11,300 makes it
> even worse), but this is a huge step up on last year's 3,587, which is
> almost double the 1848 votes in 2013.  I looked up vote counts on the
> Hugo web site and the numbers I found were:
>
> 2015   5950
> 2014   3587
> 2013   1848
> 2012   1922
> 2011   1813
> 2010   1094
> 2009   1074
> 2008   745
> 2007   471
> 2006   567
> 2005   543
>
> (Note:  these numbers are either total votes, or else the number of
> votes for best novel where no total figure is given.)
>
> You don't have to go back very far to get numbers which are very low
> indeed.  Sort of makes the whole business seem very shakey.
>
> If the Hugos are to have any sort of credibility going forward then
> the voting needs to be fixed.  First, the nomination process needs to
> be sorted out to prevent one faction dominating.  Not sure how, but
> one way might to be to reduce the number of nominations per person, or
> increase the number of nominated works.  At present each person can
> nominate five works for five total places, which means a bloc voting
> for the same five can fill the category.  If every person could only
> make one nomination, or if only one nomination was counted from each
> person, that would be harder.  Alternatively, if the five votes
> counted towards ten nominees that would also make it harder to
> dominate a cateogry.
>
> Second, I think there shuld be a rule against "Scorched Earth" voting,
> such that the votes of anyone who votes more than one or two "No
> Award" should be disallowed.  The goal is to pick the best science
> fiction after all, not to nuke the people you dislike.
>
> About the only positive thing I can think of out of all this is that
> it has made me a lot more aware of the process by which the Hugos are
> selected.  One thing which I will do is see about voting myself next
> year - I'll never get to Worldcon (wrong side of the Pacific, dammit),
> but a voting membership isn't very expensive.
>
> I expect that next year's awards will be interesting.
>
> Finishing on a more immediate note, did anyone here vote in this
> year's Hugos, or attend Worldcon?
>
> Barry
>
> I am a Statistician. One false move and you're a Statistic.
>
>
> Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters
> Click to Open Overlay GalleryGuests fill the auditorium at the Hugo
> Awards in Spokane, Washington, August 22, 2015. Holly Andres for WIRED
>
>
> --
> I am a Statistician.  One False move and you're a Statistic.



-- 
Helge