Fun Stuff > ENJOY

The sad puppies AKA it's really about ethics in award nominations

(1/4) > >>

valkygrrl:
I'm sure at least some of you are aware of the controversy in this year's Hugo award nominations. If not George R R Martin's coverage is the least heated I've seen. It can be found at http://grrm.livejournal.com/

For the Hugo voters and potential Hugo voters here, how do we move forward? It looks like bad choices all around.

Don't vote (if you normally do) and the sad puppies win by hostile takeover.

Vote based on what's on the ballot and the sad puppies win by having only their choices available for the award in some categories.

Vote for perennial Hugo loser, Noah Ward (No Award) and the sad puppies win by virtue of if we can't have Hugos no one can. The tactic of burning the fields in advance of an invading army isn't unknown though.

Vote only the non slate choices, the sad puppies win by Noah sweeping some categories and cheapen the award in others by having the winners not have actually competed against a full field, a Hugo with an asterix. This is the option I'm leaning toward but it feels wrong.

Try to figure out who agreed to be on the slate and only dismiss those people treat the others as innocent bystanders. The sad puppies still got to control some categories. This is probably acceptable in the dramatic presentation categories, what's there was probably always going to be there but it still rewards slate voting and the political aims of the sad puppies. I don't think I could do it but i understand if other people view it differently. I doubt the sad and rabid puppies consulted the producers of Guardians of the Galaxy or that said producers would have deigned to respond anyway, why would they know anything about the inner workings of a very specific part of fandom.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Undrneath:
I think regardless of controversy or popular opinion everyone should vote for what or whomever they feel truly deserve to win. That is the only way to retain integrity. The truth will out.

maxusy3k:
I'm following this only as it relates to the drama that is Gamergate and it's interesting to see the difference in response between the two. The puppies thing seems to be "out" and known for what it is, whereas Gamergate still maintains some thin air of legitimacy if only because those with power and reach largely decide not to discuss it.

I just wanted to pitch in to say, if you weren't already aware, at least two authors who made the slate have withdrawn their stories from the nominations, which is a very positive response to the hypocrisy that is the puppy claim of "retaking the awards for works based on merit and not politics" while ensuring only those they have deigned fit for representation make the slate. That first link speaks of the guilt that would come from winning an award based on political posturing and not quality of work which, as a wannabe writer myself, I can completely understand.

I don't really know much about the Hugo's myself so most of what I understand of the situation has either come from people I follow on Twitter or GRRM's own blog, but I don't think a boycott is the right idea here. GRRM has advocated using the slate as is and voting based on merit of work (with Noah being an appropriate choice if the works are poor) and that's all I guess folk can do without burning the whole thing down to the ground. It's a mess, but it's the situation as it is.

Kugai:
I think one of my favorite Authors would be disgusted at the behavior of Sad Puppies and Gamergate combined.

I hate to say this, but I'm glad Anne's no longer around to see this.

Half Empty Coffee Cup:
Sounds like the solution is to go Academy Awards style and limit who gets to vote.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page