we'd better all be ready to go to the business meeting

[solarbird]

The Sad/Rabid Puppies have already moved to threats. That's good. It gets everything right out into the open, so we all know the grounds we're operating on here.

Specifically, if fans use their fully-legal voting rights to vote NO AWARD in any Puppy-controlled Hugo Award category - something which I strongly urge be voted in every such category - and thereby undo the 10%-of-voters gaming-of-the-system that the Puppies engineered, herr oberpuppyführer Vox Day says:

If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.

Now, this is what I expect out of this sort of crowd, by which I mean, the sort of crowd who thinks that Naziism has more "truth" to it than, say, equality for women - and let me assure you I am not exaggerating, let me quote him for you on that:

National Socialism is not only human logic, it is considerably more logical, and truthful, than Communism, feminism, or secular Zionism. That was part of the tragedy of Germany's descent into it. Unlike the first two ideologies, it actually functioned effectively.

But lets get back on track, and look at those numbers above. I knew the Puppies bloc - the bloc voting their slate - was a minority in fandom. It's only yesterday that I found out how small. They're ten percent.

Ten percent voting in a block got this motley gang of white supremacists, vicious homophobes, misogynistic GamerGate opportunists, and innocent-bystanders-slash-human-shields complete control over most of the fiction awards.

And now we've been told that if we don't sit there, ignore our legal voting options, and give them the trophies that 90% of fans did not want them to have at all... they'll destroy the awards forever, or at least try.

It reeks a bit of desperation. I don't think they understood that NO AWARD is a real thing, and now they're going with threats, and claims of omnipotence, at least in planning. I think the NO AWARD movement has them destabilised.

But even without that, the rules can and will be changed. It takes two years, but unless they're going to brownshirt-up the business meetings for the next two Worldcons, those rules changes are going to happen and this is going to be stopped...

...but then again, they do say they're prepared for all eventualities.

Maybe they've tipped their hand. Maybe brownshirting up the business meeting is exactly what they mean to do. Come in a bloc, ram through round one of any rule changes they might want (like getting rid of NO AWARD, perhaps?), and most importantly, block any attempt to work around their awards manipulation. That'd be real high on their agenda, given that they've already announced they're going to do all this again next year.

They are all about the politics, after all.

Maybe we all better be ready to go to the business meeting. Turnout is usually small. Maybe this year, it needs to be large. Maybe it needs to be very large. I don't know what, yet, can be done to stop slates - but something has to happen, or it will be slate vs. slate as far as the eye can see, because political parties work, whether you like it or not. And I'd prefer rules changes to diminish the effectiveness of slates to a slate-vs-slate non-solution.

So I think we have two agenda items:

1. This year, vote NO AWARD.
2. Come to the business meeting at Worldcon, and stay there, to make sure it sticks.

eta: The Guide to WSFS Business Meetings. Read this before the meeting!

Echoed from Crime and the Blog of Evil. Come listen to our music on Bandcamp!

Comments

[vatine]

I'll definitely make an effort to turn up. I should probably refresh my knowledge of Robert's (Roberts' ?) Rules of Order, as the meeting standards I grew up with is merely an approximate match (and the edge cases is what will trip one up, after all).

[solarbird]

Kevin will definitely be ready to keep a very tight rein on things.

[angelwolfgeek]

(disclaimer - I'm a fan of one or two of the people who are deeply involved with sad puppies -Larry Correia and Brad Torgenson, , and am probably more familiar with *their* side of things than others. I'm *not* familiar with vox day though, outside the fact that he has *extreme* viewpoints, and that I've not heard great things outside "he has a right to his views" from the writers I've seen mentions of from him. I'm referencing brad torgenson's blog since he's the guy running sad puppies this year. You're free to disagree of course. I'd also add unless prompted specifically, this is the last you'll hear of this from me.).

And well..

Vox Day isn't particularly representative of the sad puppies "campaign" https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vox-plays-chicken-with-worldcon/, any more than say the person who wrote this https://archive.today/X2HPi (and its an archive link since EW took it down cause it was pretty much putting them at risk of libel). I've only heard of vox day being involved *this* year (SP's been going on for about 3), and as "Rabid Puppies"... and well, the SP organisers weren't very happy.

And well, I'd rather someone win cause people read and liked the book, than people choosing to vote cause a bunch of upstarts from what one may consider "the other side of the fence" had the audacity to go "Guys, these books are good. You should read them!".


Both sides complain of inclusivity - one that we need more female, LGBT, or Person of Colour (Don't ever call me that :)) Writers in sci fi, and complain about the lack of those viewpoints in fiction. On the other, there's those who complain that you need to somehow have the right political viewpoint to get a chance in some circles. My library has leftists, rightists, women, men... If you write a book that I can pick up and hooks me, I don't care whose name's on the cover.


Both sides are probably right. I've seen some pretty vicious stuff on IO9 about SP this year and elsewhere, and well, I haven't read anything of mr Day's but SP's worried he's going too far.

I do think that the love of science fiction and fantasy should be more important than political or social differences, or cliques.

I'd think that voting no award shouldn't be done cause you want to spoil the other guys. There's nothing good you like? Go ahead. Voting cause someone who you disagreed with organised (I almost used the word suddenly) and filled the slate with stuff they enjoyed? Well, you're free to choose that, I guess. Just consider that first.

I'd also add that the sad puppies slate was pretty diverse at first glance, so immediately charecterising their picks as white supremacists, vicious homophobes, misogynistic GamerGate opportunists is unfair to *the writers*.

(minor additions for clarity made)

[solarbird]

I would have more sympathy for the We're-not-with-Vox apologists, except that Correia and Torgersen in particular actively reached out to Vox and actively decided to include him. The crocodile tears he's crying now (in the post you link) do not impress me. And given that the leadership of the campaign actively made this decision, it is impossible to argue Vox Day is not representative. (Also, John C. Wright, another major figure, is mostly published by Vox Day's press.)

Vox Day is inarguably viciously racist, homophobic, and really, really hates women, arguing such things as women find rape attractive, and that marital rape does not exist because marriage is irrevocable consent to sex on demand. None of this was a surprise. He was booted from SFWA after using SFWA resources to promulgate a white supremacist rant against another SFWA writer. None of this was a secret, and they brought him in anyway.

In short, they made that bed; they can lie in it.

But independently of that, my call for NO AWARD on all slates is literally that - NO AWARD against all slates. I'm arguing for that despite the pain it will cause some possibly entirely worthy writers, because it is the only way we might be able to save next year's awards.

The Puppies demonstrated, irrefutably, that slates work. 10% of a vote got 100% of the nominations in most literary categories. This is why political parties are inevitable, as well, in a typical voting system. Slates, which basically are parties, work.

The only way they will not be used - en masse - next year is if the entire concept of slates is rejected by the voting public. That isn't a question; it's a certainty. What works will be used.

So to keep the awards something other than a political prize, we need to make sure doing that doesn't work.

Vote NO AWARD above all slate nominees. No matter what.

eta: I pasted in the wrong link, linking to Torgensen's blog rather than his specific defence of Vox Day. I have fixed the link.

[vatine]

You know what I find deeply ironic? Up until this whole Puppy Slate thing kicked off, I would happily read Correia's books (because they're well-written action romps). Now, not so much, because there comes a point where the acts of the person is no longer separable from my enjoyment of the work.

So there's some evidence that what they're trying to do backfires at least some of the time.