ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, April 05, 2015

A cunning plan

Watch out! The bitter SJWs and Torlings have come up with a clever two-part plan to take back the Hugo Awards!
  1. Sign up Castalia House for UK mailing lists. Muawahahahahaha.
  2. Blow up the Hugo Awards by voting No Award.
I don't know about you, but I suddenly find myself questioning if I can find the strength to carry on in light of such effective actions and threats, especially such totally unforeseeable ones such as the latter.
Dear Mr VoxDay AndOtherRacistHomophobes

****** THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE FROM TfL's CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ******

Thank you for signing up to our Weekend closures email.

To make sure you receive our emails, please add Transport_for_London@info.tfl.gov.uk to your email address book.
They're totally not irrational and flailing wildly about at all. Even other Tor editors besides the NHs are now doubling-down:
I’m asking people to vote for No Award (not a person named “Noah Ward,” please note), which is the escape clause the rules give us to signal that the process is broken. I don’t expect you to understand how it’s broken. Clearly the principles you’re basing your argument are radically different from mine. In these late days of traditional fandom, as sad as that is, it’s not surprising.
- Moshe Feder, Consulting Senior Editor for Tor Books
 I’m going to assume everyone here understands the concept of statistical variance. Here are the variances compared for the SP2 nominees, the top vote getter in the eight major categories in 2014, and the suspicious Tor darlings from 2008 to 2013. Can you spot the bloc votes?

    Variance: 3773.9 (SP 2014)
    Variance:  1493.8 (SP 2013)    Variance: 1.6 (Tor 2008)    Variance: 98.6 (Tor 2009)    Variance: 119.1 (Tor 2010)    Variance: 4.7 (Tor 2012)    Variance: 14.9 (Tor 2013)

Note that 2008 is when Scalzi posted his most blatant “Award Pimpage Post” and he and Stross finished within 3 votes of each other for Best Novel (41), Best Novel (40) and Best Fan Writer. (43). That same year, Tor editors PNH (70) and David Hartwell (67) were within 3 votes of each other as well. Its pretty obvious that there was an additional "suck up to the big dogs at Tor vote of 30 votes over the Scalzi/Stross alliance.

By contrast, this year, the leading vote-getter in Best Novel, presumably Correia, received 387 votes, which was similar to the 384 votes in Best Editor Long, presumably Weisskopf. Bloc vote, right? Well, no, that doesn’t hold up because it is far more than the 230 that Wright presumably got in Short Story or the 201 that Johnson presumably got in Best Fan Writer. It's too soon to tell, but there may be more variance among the people who voted for John Wright in Best Novella alone than between the 2008 Stross/Scalzi vote.

To claim that TWO 3-vote variances in a single year are LESS suspicious than an open slate that differed by at least 186 votes is either dishonest or insane. Especially when both Scalzi and Stross are self-admitted Hugo campaigners.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Anonymous Tom S April 05, 2015 12:13 PM  

"...is either dishenest or insane."

Is this really an either/or situation? Can't they be both?

Anonymous Alec April 05, 2015 12:24 PM  

I took Rabid Puppies as a guide, but mostly only nominated works that I had read and liked. For example, I didn't nominate Butcher, because I hadn't read any of the Dresden files. Now that I've read them all he's probably the top contender for my vote (pending reading some other nominees)

Anonymous Aeoli April 05, 2015 12:26 PM  

(If you don't understand statistical variance, The Manga Guide to Statistics is the best introduction on the market. Just ignore the implied pedophilia.)

/pedantic

Anonymous Will Best April 05, 2015 12:27 PM  

To their credit, the people that count the votes haven't just started making stuff up. There are plenty examples where leftist just change the rules in the middle in order to eliminate bad people.

Anonymous Rolf April 05, 2015 12:38 PM  

Remember - dishonest and insane are not mutually exclusive on the Venn diagram.

Anonymous Salt April 05, 2015 12:48 PM  

Just a cursory observation. I actually suspect some SJW party-goers quietly shifted their votes. Membership/voting did not rise enough to signal puppy performance demonstrated.

Since they're calling for a grand Noah, fine. It's SP/RP followed by Noah Ward. It's what they want. I'll play.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 05, 2015 12:53 PM  

This is incredible. By signing his post with his title he is signaling that this was his company's policy not just his own.

I'm sure there is nothing about the process that means Tor can't jam their foot into this but it's very interesting that they are doing so.

Anonymous FP April 05, 2015 12:53 PM  

Its not wrong when they do it! Duh! Colorado bureaucrats have just ruled that its ok to refuse to make an anti-gay wedding cake but discriminatory to refuse to make a gay wedding cake.

The past day has been most amusing. Money well spent I say. This and the Obsidian thing with the Pillars of Eternity game's supposed transphobic joke written by a backer has meant much laughter at the insanity.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 05, 2015 12:54 PM  

This is incredible. By signing his post with his title he is signaling that this was his company's policy not just his own.

I'm sure there is nothing about the process that means Tor can't jam their foot into this but it's very interesting that they are doing so.

Anonymous NateM April 05, 2015 12:56 PM  

Jason Sanford's dissembling is amusing, especially since his very data shows that the Sad Puppies are far more well read, some by a factor of 8 in the best novel category.

Anonymous bw April 05, 2015 1:22 PM  

either dishonest or insane

Do not be fooled. It is an intentional lie, and they know it and do not care.
While they may very well be religious fundamentalist political and cultural idealogues, they have every capacity to see the truth if they desired to do so.
They do not. The personal is the political, and is their Identity.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling April 05, 2015 1:23 PM  

Well, for the first time Blogspot completely ate a submission of mine, so rather than try to recreate it, in short: have been reading SF for more than four decades. In the SF/F/Action category in recent times have bought close to as many books from Tor as all other imprints combined, but with these statements from SJWs masquerading as Tor senior editors on top of everything else that stops today. There are more than enough books in this category for me to read and re-read that I'm set for life, although I hope the people who currently run Tor and Tor.com get their just desserts and I can resume buying.

Blogger Vox April 05, 2015 1:23 PM  

This is incredible. By signing his post with his title he is signaling that this was his company's policy not just his own.

In fairness, he didn't. I just put it there to identify him. But given that PNH is the senior editor there, I have no doubt that it is. For now.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 05, 2015 1:24 PM  

Well then I stand corrected.

Anonymous Toz April 05, 2015 1:37 PM  

So this means that the rules will probably change next year. Maybe they only allow 1 nomination per category per person, maybe they restrict who can vote, maybe they create some rules about campaigning, maybe something else.

Which is the best outcome? If the Hugos end up with all "No Award" wins, what do you new rules do you expect next year? How would you combat what's inevitably coming?

Blogger Markku April 05, 2015 1:41 PM  

How would you combat what's inevitably coming?

Keep bringing right-thinking people into WorldCon memership until SJW's are so small a minority that they can't bring pink SF/F in even with whatever rules they come up with.

Blogger S1AL April 05, 2015 1:43 PM  

My understanding is that it takes 2 years to make those kinds of changes.

My suspicion is that the silent moderates, the people who don't really have a dog in this fight, are going to look at the massive amount of additional interest and funds flowing in and say "eh, seems fine to me."

The most reasonable suggestion would be to expand the shortlist but keep the nominations number the same. So then we're looking at, say, 7 slots and you can nominate 5. Given the size of the SFF field, that actually sounds like a good idea.

Blogger Markku April 05, 2015 1:44 PM  

I mean, the entire question sounds like loser thinking. It betrays thinking oneself still as a minority.

Blogger Markku April 05, 2015 1:49 PM  

If you bought membership, you ARE WorldCon now. That's what membership means. Start thinking it as your award, not an award we grabbed by trickery. THEY decided to sell you membership. The cat is out of the bag. You are not an outsider anymore, you're an insider.

Anonymous Toz April 05, 2015 1:49 PM  

> I mean, the entire question sounds like loser thinking. It betrays thinking oneself still as a minority.

Perhaps I'm more pessimistic, but you should be preparing for the counter-attacks to come. It's possible this slate will cause everyone to see the light and make the Hugos fair again. But it's also possible the results of what happens this year will cause some serious changes. As far as I'm concerned being in the majority does not guarantee anything, let alone a win.

Anonymous Toz April 05, 2015 1:54 PM  

> If you bought membership, you ARE WorldCon now. That's what membership means. Start thinking it as your award, not an award we grabbed by trickery. THEY decided to sell you membership. The cat is out of the bag. You are not an outsider anymore, you're an insider.

Good point. That brings up another angle of attack. Tor may very well decide to buy 2000 memberships for the "right thinking" people. $80k isn't exactly little, but it's well within the means of a big company like Tor.

The war hasn't been won yet. There are a lot more battles ahead.

Blogger Markku April 05, 2015 1:56 PM  

We? I represent a publisher. The award in no way belongs to me. It is something WorldCon chooses to give, and WorldCon chose to include some of our authors as some of the options. If you're a member, it's your award you are giving to our authors. If you fear that you might not have the numbers to nominate what you want after some rule changes, then bring more people in. When you have the numbers, the only possible rule change to prevent our side of the political aisle is to EXPLICITLY police a member's political alignment. And that would be such a trainwreck that if they do it, it has all been worth it. Can you imagine the rethorical force of that weapon?

Blogger Vox April 05, 2015 2:01 PM  

Perhaps I'm more pessimistic, but you should be preparing for the counter-attacks to come. It's possible this slate will cause everyone to see the light and make the Hugos fair again. But it's also possible the results of what happens this year will cause some serious changes. As far as I'm concerned being in the majority does not guarantee anything, let alone a win.

Toz, I'm a game designer and a student of William S. Lind and Martin van Creveld. Rest assured, we are fully prepared for the anticipated counter-attacks and have already thoroughly gamed out the most likely scenarios. And if an unanticipated plays out, tactical free-lancing is arguably my strongest point.

We are ready. Just stay with us and do what you can to bring in new Puppies, be they Rabid or Sad. It's far from over and it's not going to end this year.

Blogger Vox April 05, 2015 2:02 PM  

Tor may very well decide to buy 2000 memberships for the "right thinking" people. $80k isn't exactly little, but it's well within the means of a big company like Tor.

No, they won't. Tor isn't that big and it's not doing very well. It's also against the rules.

Anonymous Toz April 05, 2015 2:32 PM  

> We are ready. Just stay with us and do what you can to bring in new Puppies, be they Rabid or Sad. It's far from over and it's not going to end this year.

Agreed, I see this as a very long battle and it may very well end up with somebody bankrupt. Vox, you're a good economist, writer and debater. But that does not guarantee you will win this war. I'm happy with my membership in WorldCon since I get SciFi works to read for free, but my support for SP/RP is dependent on you (and the rest of the ironically named Evil League of Evil) acting ethically. Others' support may depend on other things. Will you and the rest of the Evil League win with those restrictions? I certainly hope so. Best of luck and I really hope you have a good plan laid out for this.

Blogger Dave W. April 05, 2015 2:38 PM  

Mailing lists? LOL! Look out, Vox, next they're gonna send you some unwanted delivery pizza!

Blogger Vox April 05, 2015 2:52 PM  

But that does not guarantee you will win this war.

Of course not. We've been losing it for 30 years, we just didn't know it.

I'm happy with my membership in WorldCon since I get SciFi works to read for free, but my support for SP/RP is dependent on you (and the rest of the ironically named Evil League of Evil) acting ethically.

We haven't so much as BENT the rules. And that has been confirmed by Sasquan and at least one SMOF.

Anonymous Scintan April 05, 2015 2:55 PM  

The most reasonable suggestion would be to expand the shortlist but keep the nominations number the same. So then we're looking at, say, 7 slots and you can nominate 5. Given the size of the SFF field, that actually sounds like a good idea.

Reject any attempts to change the voting. They made the rules. Force them to play by them.

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A April 05, 2015 2:56 PM  

"Mailing list subscriptions." What next? Phone calls about "Prince Albert in a can"?

It's becoming more evident with each passing dust-up that SWJs and their cohort (whether the Hugos, Gamergate, churches, or other social-justice infested areas of society) that those who are only capable of Rhetorical Engagement have pathetically crippled imaginations as well. Pitiful and pitiable.

Anonymous Scintan April 05, 2015 2:59 PM  

It's becoming more evident with each passing dust-up that SWJs and their cohort (whether the Hugos, Gamergate, churches, or other social-justice infested areas of society) that those who are only capable of Rhetorical Engagement have pathetically crippled imaginations as well. Pitiful and pitiable.

As we see in D.C., and state house after state house, It all depends on the leadership.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 05, 2015 3:11 PM  

I'm not at all certain what they can do, other than try to bring in outside voters. To do that, they will have to attract some support from A-List SJWs. Even then it won't be easy, forty bucks is more money than a typical SJW can burn. They are above all, lazy activists. If their initial shaming tactics don't work, they are usually at a loss.

Even if they do bring in enough outsiders, the only thing they can do is No Award pretty much the entire ballot.

A Pyrrhic Victory is not much of a victory.

Presumably they will try to move the goal posts if nothing else works but I'm not sure how they can even do that.

@Vox Day, have you looked into hotel rates in Spokane?

Anonymous Vorkuta April 05, 2015 3:17 PM  

Meanwhile, Charlie Stross breathlessly speculates on the horrors to come. It was apparently a little over the top even for MeFi and was deleted by mods:

http://www.metafilter.com/148598/The-Biggest-Little-SF-Publisher-you-never-heard-of-declares-war

Anonymous Alexander April 05, 2015 3:19 PM  

We are playing by their rules. Specifically:

4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules

6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy

8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.


See, I can enjoy left-wing books as well!

Blogger Ken Prescott April 05, 2015 3:19 PM  

"This is incredible. By signing his post with his title he is signaling that this was his company's policy not just his own."

And two of the SP nominees are Tor products. The Tor sales department might not be down with that.

Rule One of being a "consulting" anything for a corporation: Thou Shalt Not Bad-Mouth Thy Client's Product, For Thou Art Fired Far More Readily Than an Actual Corporate Employee.

Anonymous A Reader April 05, 2015 3:21 PM  

Its good that people here are thinking ahead--thats something that successful chess players and military leaders do.

One thing I'm trying to figure out: Who gets to vote among the nominees? Is it just those who attend the convention, or is it convention attendees plus those who bought memberships?

Anonymous Nathan April 05, 2015 3:28 PM  

Those who purchase(d) attending and supporting memberships can vote, so the later.

Blogger James Dixon April 05, 2015 3:28 PM  

> Who gets to vote among the nominees?

Everyone. If you bought a membership you get to vote.

You only get to vote on rules changes if you attend and attend their meetings.

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A April 05, 2015 3:29 PM  

" A Reader April 05, 2015 3:21 PM
One thing I'm trying to figure out: Who gets to vote among the nominees? Is it just those who attend the convention, or is it convention attendees plus those who bought memberships?"

To vote on the nominees, buy a supporting membership to Sasquan/Worldcon here: Sasquon Registration

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 05, 2015 3:30 PM  

Presumably they will try to move the goal posts if nothing else works but I'm not sure how they can even do that.

I've thought it through. Look for the Nebula Awards to be the Anti-Hugos.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell April 05, 2015 3:30 PM  

Ken, you're responding to a post that is obsolete and has been contradicted.

Blogger Ken Prescott April 05, 2015 3:36 PM  

Derrick...commenting without reading subsequent posts is a fine Internet tradition!

At any rate, I do sit corrected (I do not stand corrected, for I am not standing). Still, that rule goes for anyone making any sort of public commentary. One wonders how Monday's various business meetings at Tor are going to go...

"Good news: one of our books got nominated for a Hugo! Bad news: an actual Tor employees and a consulting editor are publicly advocating no-award voting ahead of our book because of who nominated it."

Blogger dfordoom April 05, 2015 3:36 PM  

Meanwhile, Charlie Stross breathlessly speculates on the horrors to come.

He's even played the Nazi card!

Anonymous Alexander April 05, 2015 3:37 PM  

That must have been a fun wikipedia trip for him though. WHY FINLAND, BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK THE MOST RIGHT-WING ASSHOLES ON THE PLANET, YOU THINK SCANDINAVIA, THAT'S WHY

Blogger dfordoom April 05, 2015 3:40 PM  

Wouldn't the ideal result be for No Award to win in every category? That would expose the SJWs as the bigoted, spiteful, petulant, ideologically-driven losers that they are. It would entirely discredit the Hugo Awards, probably permanently. It would mean the SJWs smashing their toys so that no other children could play with them. Which is just the sort of thing we want them to be seen as doing.

Anonymous A Reader April 05, 2015 3:41 PM  

Many thanks for the replies to my question.

This is looking good. I highly doubt that the 'no award' vote will win.

Anonymous Ajax April 05, 2015 3:56 PM  

The Hugo Awards Were Always Political. But Now They're Only Political

Anonymous Jeanne April 05, 2015 4:01 PM  

For any one who may not be aware of how it, here is a simple run down on how the "No Award" vote, which is treated just like any other nominee, works. This is from the Hugo FAQ:

"The No Award Test

The final check before a winner can be determined is known as the No Award Test. The valid ballots are divided into three piles: those in which No Award is ranked higher than the prospective winner, those in which the prospective winner is ranked higher than No Award, and those in which neither No Award nor the prospective winner have preferences listed. Note that a ballot that contains a preference for the prospective winner but does not contain a preference for No Award goes into the “prospective winner higher than no award” pile. This is because lack of preference is, by definition, lower than any preference. Having got the three piles, the votes in the “prospective winner higher than No Award pile” and the votes in the “No Award higher than prospective winner” pile are counted. If the number of votes with the prospective winner placed higher is greater then the result is confirmed. If the pile with No Award placed higher is greater then no award is given in the category that year."

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A April 05, 2015 4:08 PM  

"dfordoom April 05, 2015 3:40 PM
Wouldn't the ideal result be for No Award to win in every category? That would expose the SJWs as the bigoted, spiteful, petulant, ideologically-driven losers that they are. It would entirely discredit the Hugo Awards, probably permanently. It would mean the SJWs smashing their toys so that no other children could play with them. Which is just the sort of thing we want them to be seen as doing."


As others have rightly pointed out, the Hugos are within a Xanatos Gambit that favors the 'Puppies. Xanatos Gambit

Blogger Noah B April 05, 2015 4:25 PM  

Any chance of some sort of gentleman's agreement to get closer alignment between Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies? I don't know how that would be worked out exactly, but I'd argue that having a slate of non-SJW winners is more important than who the specific winners are. It would also give us greater chances of surmounting the "No Award" votes.

I realize the difficulties involved and expect you guys are probably considering this already, but I thought I'd mention it in any case.

Anonymous kfg April 05, 2015 4:54 PM  

@Alexander:

I love the smell of Rule 4 in the morning.

"See, I can enjoy left-wing books as well!"

In my youth I noted that it seemed as if they don't know that that's even possible. That because it's a radical book that somehow only radicals, and only radicals on their side, can gain access to it.

This puzzled me, until I learned that they react to opposing views with fight, or, and preferably, flight. Since they can't read us without having panic attacks, they assume that we react similarly to their own writings.

While I love the smell of projection in the morning, sometimes I feel that it takes too much of the challenge out of the game.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 05, 2015 5:09 PM  

"April 05, 2015 2:38 PM Mailing lists? LOL! Look out, Vox, next they're gonna send you some unwanted delivery pizza!"

Don't forget to check the bathrooms to see if there is any "for a good time call Vox Day" messages.

"decide to buy 2000 memberships for the "right thinking" people. $80k isn't exactly little, but "
Considering Soros is only willing to shell out $15 per vote for homeless people in US elections I think the awards are safe.

Blogger Alexander April 05, 2015 5:33 PM  

Yeah I've noted that. As if published mass produced works are only capable of being read by the select.

Blogger Markku April 05, 2015 6:09 PM  

I realize the difficulties involved and expect you guys are probably considering this already, but I thought I'd mention it in any case.

It's funnier when the other side doesn't understand how the puppies work, but let's just say that nobody should be troubled, nor see ominous portents, in the fact that there were two slates. Except SJW's.

Blogger napari April 05, 2015 7:54 PM  

Living in the USA and after several years of debating with SJW's I can say with conviction that their idea of compromise is to see how much they can get the "other" side to give while returning zero. SJW's are redefining the laws to represent their views and do not believe in "living and let live".

Vox is correct. When dealing with SJW's hitting twice as hard and giving zero ground is the ONLY way to deal with them since the very essence of their being is to concoct falsehoods benefitting their views only.

The fact that SJW's have gone on the attack shows how desperate they are so therefore Vox is winning. Well done Vox and I predict thousands more will join/ support your blog, the puppies and whatever else it takes to beat the SJW's back into the closet before slamming the door shut.

Matter of fact I'm so pleased with current events I'm headed over to Castalia House and select something from the many QUALITY titles in stock. I'm partial to JCW but maybe its time to try someone else I haven't read yet! :)

Blogger Daniel April 05, 2015 9:59 PM  

Yeah two slates kind of hamstrings their dark horse argument out of the gate. 2 slates is genius if if it was accidental.

Blogger epobirs April 06, 2015 5:49 AM  

Personally, I love the idea of them lapsing into supervillain mindsets and shouting "If I can't have it, nobody can!" Then self-immolating along with all their henchmen and volcano base.

A quick google search show a good number of folks already operating under the name of Noah Ward, including a prominent game designer. Too bad, for a moment I thought I had the perfect pen name if I ever took up writing fiction.

Blogger James Dixon April 06, 2015 7:51 AM  

Just use the actual title, No Award, epobirs.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts