Fun Stuff > ENJOY
The sad puppies AKA it's really about ethics in award nominations
jwhouk:
And to the 90% of the population who DGNF (as the youth at my workplace are prone to say) about the Hugos, this is all greeted with a "Meh".
hazlett:
Two finalist had withdraw their titles. They don't want to participate in scheme.
maxusy3k:
Interesting (and lengthy) article on the subject here.
Jimor:
The systemic problem exists because very few eligible voters (attendees of the World Science Fiction Convention, or those who buy "supporting" memberships for ~$40) bother, so the nominating process is wide open for gaming like this. The real solution is to encourage more nominations and voting, even if the seriousness of those extra votes is more casual in nature. I get the sense that this kind of solution would be more troubling to the people in charge than dealing directly with controversies like this. As an example, the gnashing of teeth over one of the Harry Potter books winning, while less public than the current mess, was no less intense.
If you want to maintain the limitation to members, I'd restrict it to actual attendees, but make the period of eligibility to vote extend 10 years after going. Otherwise, open it up to a much wider audience of popular voting with very few restrictions.
valkygrrl:
another take http://www.amnottheonlyone.com/the-psychology-of-hugo-sad-puppies-and-rabid-puppies/
Jimor any changes to the rules are a problem for later and involve a 2 year process. This year I and others have to deal with the choices we've been given.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version