I think that's exactly right. There have been plenty of people who reacted pretty strongly with a proposed scorched earth policy for all the SP swept categories, but most of the more prominent voices and targets of the SP, including John Scalzi who for some reason the SP crowd is oddly obsessed with, have basically said to read the nominated works, and vote accordingly. That being said, if the nominated works truly aren't good, voting for Noah Ward is fair game.
What’s Happening With The Hugos?
- Thread starter Zaku
- Start date
I think that's exactly right. There have been plenty of people who reacted pretty strongly with a proposed scorched earth policy for all the SP swept categories, but most of the more prominent voices and targets of the SP, including John Scalzi who for some reason the SP crowd is oddly obsessed with, have basically said to read the nominated works, and vote accordingly. That being said, if the nominated works truly aren't good, voting for Noah Ward is fair game.
But what have said bloggers been doing? The same thing. And for quite a long time.
Shaka Zulu, you can keep reiterating your false claims about the victims of your beloved hate group. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people aren't buying any of your bullshit. I also don't see any reason to engage in further discussion on this anymore.
I don't think this is the right place for your agenda.
I don't think this is the right place for your agenda.
The ballot is the result of people who vote on the nominations voting the way they choose for whatever reason they choose.
Given that the Hugo nominating process is open to all members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention the solutions to this kind of log rolling on Sad Puppies' part are for other people to nominate works that receive more votes, change the nominating process (real unlikely) or wait for SP to get bored (likely).
Given that the Hugo nominating process is open to all members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention the solutions to this kind of log rolling on Sad Puppies' part are for other people to nominate works that receive more votes, change the nominating process (real unlikely) or wait for SP to get bored (likely).
Last edited:
Ah, the old "but they're doing it too" excuse. That's a completely valid and mature reason if I ever heard one. Grow up, people will say things you disagree with and they have every right to. Go find something you like and stick to it.
What are you even talking about?
If you don't like a blogger talking about video games, don't read that blogger. You don't need to attack them. It's just a video game, not a way of life. If you're so upset about women making games or bloggers saying things about games that you feel the urge to start a movement, you really need to re-evaluate your life. You're wasting it on completely pointless things.
If you don't want a feminist game, don't play it. It isn't like video games are a finite resource, there is room for anyone who wants to make a game to make a game. If a blogger wants to review that game, good for them. I don't care if an indie developer paid a blogger for a good review. If that upsets you, then you should probably pick a bigger target because every big developer does it. But you don't see that, because the GamerGate children (and they are all children emotionally or physically) like those games and won't boycott them. Going after indie games is an easy target because they have nothing to lose. They don't want to play those games anyway and it gives the illusion of moral superiority, at least to the idiots in GamerGate. I've tried to take their word for it that it was about "ethics in journalism", but I've never found a single person who could explain why they only focused on blogs and indie developers instead of companies like EA. EA has paid companies for years and not a single one cares. Really the only thing it can be is an excuse to attack women along with idiots who too stupid to understand what is really going on.
Indeed. I really wish this Social Justice Warrior would pipe down about the under-representation of women in videogames and just accept that that's just the way it is (some things will never change). Whatever happened to that guy, anyway? I'm sure he would have appreciated Sarkeesian's and Quinn's valid critiques of the treatment of women and female characters in the gaming industry.
I suppose this guy should just shut up about whitewashing and under-representation of minorities in movies, lest he appear hypocritical when criticizing concerns others have regarding women in gaming.
I'm sure given your extremely high standards for ethics in journalism (Because that's really what GamerGate is about, amirite? Suuure) and truth you wouldn't possibly start a thread complaining about Selma's treatment at the Oscar's based on two either gross misrepresentations of the facts or incredible ignorance of the issues at hand (which could have been looked up in seconds), which didn't stop you from complaining? Is it possible you might be equally misrepresenting the facts or operating from a position of ignorance on this issue? Because your "facts" have been challenged and discredited in multiple threads yet you keep rolling right along making the same complaints like nothing has changed. Would Miss Sarkeesian or Quinn receive the same benefit of the doubt from you? I think not.
Yeah, those are all nice and good, but this is the post where he absolutely dismantles any type of argument SP is trying to make using...wait for it...FACTS
http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html
Correia's "response" is linked in the comments there. SPOILER: It's insane.
Shaka Zulu, I've been reading through this thread trying to take in everything it covers. I strongly urge you to drop the topic of the gamergate controversy, especially concerning Ms Quinn and Ms Sarkesian. You've been taken to task for that before, so drop it now. We have enough to handle as it is with this subject of the Hugo Awards and related nomination procedure. It's a good subject for discussion as most people have proven, so I do NOT want to see you drag it off topic again.
Martin's most salient point is that the fact that SP has been so much more effective at campaigning than anyone previously may permanently change the way Hugo nominations happen - the Puppies will cease to dominate pretty quickly only because their competitors will start mounting their own effective campaigns. Then the whole shebang becomes the Oscars.
Correia's response is one big, "Worldcon hurt my feelings, and I didn't like it" rant. Which I get, if that happened, sucked for him and wasn't cool, but it's an anecdote, not an argument based on stats or facts. Martin laid out the facts as to why SP is just plain wrong in what they claim is happening. Correia has yet to respond to that post at all.
Last edited:
Well, I'd like to think that folks could appreciate HPL's diction if nothing else. Same with Chaplin, who was pretty far to the other side--yet no one can argue with his brilliance.
Case in point---from David Niven's autobiography Bring On the Empty Horses:
"Screenwriter Charles MacArthur asked Chaplin for advice onhow to design a gag in which a fat lady is walking down the street,slipping on a banana peeland falling down. Since such a stunt was performed thousands of times before, how to do it and make the audience laugh?"
"Should he first show the banana peel, then the lady approaching, and then the fall? Or, to show the fat lady first, and then the banana peel on which she slips?"
Charlie Chaplin immediately replied:
"Neither. You show the fat lady approaching; then you show the banana peel; then you show the fat lady and the banana peel together; then she steps OVER the banana peel and disappears down a manhole."
Brilliant.
My big gripe is that the Hugos should have the same coverage as the Oscars.
Last edited:
Kloos withdraws his nomination for Best Novel.
http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/2015/04/15/a-statement-on-my-hugo-nomination/
"I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.
It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.
I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics."
http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/2015/04/15/a-statement-on-my-hugo-nomination/
"I have officially withdrawn my acceptance of the Best Novel nomination for “Lines of Departure” at this year’s Hugo Awards.
It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.
I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics."
Similar threads
