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

Monday, September 07, 2015

Sasquan tries to hide voting scandal?

Unbelievable. I wonder what it is they are trying to hide? Tor buying supporting memberships for its employees?
Back at Sasquan, the BM passed a non-binding resolution to request that Sasquan provide anonymized nomination data from the 2015 Hugo Awards.  I stood before the BM and said, as its official representative, that we would comply with such requests.  However, new information has come in which has caused us to reverse that decision.  Specifically, upon review, the administration team believes it may not be possible to anonymize the nominating data sufficiently to allow for a public release.  We are investigating alternatives.

Thank you for your patience in this matter.  While we truly wish to comply with the resolution and fundamentally believe in transparent processes, we must hold the privacy of our members paramount and I hope that you understand this set of priorities.

Best,

Glenn Glazer
Vice-Chair, Business and Finance
Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention
This is not acceptable. This is not even REMOTELY acceptable. If you voted in the 2015 Hugo Awards, I encourage you to contact Sasquan and demand that they released the anonymized nomination data.

I find it very difficult to believe they are refusing to release it because it might make the Rabid Puppies look bad; we already know that the SJW message that the Puppies voted in lockstep is completely false. So, the question is: what voting patterns tend to embarrass whom?

Let's look at the usual suspects. Patrick Nielsen Hayden had 65 votes for Best Long Form Editor. John Scalzi had 168 votes for Best Novel and 78 votes for Best Novella. Not exactly suspicious, although I expect there is considerable overlap between Editor and Novella there.

Labels: , ,

162 Comments:

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 3:54 PM  

I am quite happy for the world to know that I purchased one supporting membership.

Anonymous Rolf September 07, 2015 3:56 PM  

I have no problem letting the world know how I voted.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours :-)

Blogger jay c September 07, 2015 4:10 PM  

I'm not entirely unacquainted with database management, yet I'm having trouble imagining a circumstance in which this data could not be easily anonymized.

Anonymous Menelaus September 07, 2015 4:14 PM  

@3
agreed, I can't imagine such a scenario.

Anonymous Menelaus September 07, 2015 4:16 PM  

Perhaps the VFM can volunteer db assistance.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 4:18 PM  

Except, or course, if it shows that one individual, or a small number of individuals, purchased a large number of supporting memberships.

Clearly, since they find a need to cover it up, it was not one of the Sad or Rabid puppies.

(Damn, every time I try to search on some of that text above it keeps wanting to show me a document on how to create a diverse workplace.)

Anonymous Who Dat September 07, 2015 4:19 PM  

We need Ethics in voting journalism! gee, I'm getting this weird deja vu feeling. Why does this all seem so familiar?

Blogger jay c September 07, 2015 4:20 PM  

@6. Except, or course, if it shows that one individual, or a small number of individuals, purchased a large number of supporting memberships.
That should be very easy to hide. Each membership will still have its own ID. Just remove all data except the ID and the votes. You could even change the ID to a random number if you don't want to reveal that a block of 100 IDs all voted identically.

Blogger jay c September 07, 2015 4:21 PM  

Do you have a link, Vox?

Anonymous Steve, The Dark Ninja of Mockery September 07, 2015 4:21 PM  

Indeed, how hard can it be to delete names and contact info? This looks dodgier than Jim C. Hines at a Chuck E. Cheese's.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 4:24 PM  

This looks dodgier than Jim C. Hines at a Chuck E. Cheese's.

Whoa. Was he trying to look at little girl's and boy's crotches?

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 September 07, 2015 4:24 PM  

Or simply ignore "the ol' drawn out publicity" trick, popularized by BH Obama's "team" in producing..um....ANYTHING!
Just make the "data" up to suit your tastes.
When the denials surface, double down, using "naughty" words.
Maybe include a variation of "Until such time as their innocence is proven....or something"
Imply (inevitable)"doctoring" in ANY delay.
"Unexpectedly" the onus is on them.
CaptDMO

Blogger Marc DuQuesne September 07, 2015 4:27 PM  

Removing all the Personally Identification Information is more than sufficient to anonymize the data. The usual suspects claimed on a file770 thread that this isn't really anonymous because the voter identities could conceivably be determined by cross referencing with Goodreads ratings. This is such a fatuous line of bullshit that it must be cover for something.

The obvious reason is that the TOR slate will be easy to see once the data is released. This would ruin the narrative that the puppies were the only slate, and that cannot be allowed. They need to hide the data to protect their lies.

Long term is even more insidious, even though Larry validated the honesty of the administration in SP1 and SP2, that was before the Anti-puppy CHORFS went all in this year. They are working to setup a system with hidden data and a non-intuitive black box EPH program to determine the nominees. They are designing the game so that they will be able to control it.

This calls for a binding resolution at the next meeting to force them to release the nominating data from the last 20 years and all years going forward.

Anonymous Pax Romana September 07, 2015 4:30 PM  

"Back at Sasquan, the BM passed"

I accept that it's juvenile of me, but I chuckled at the idea of a BM passing, especially since it is not clear what the acronym means in this case.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling September 07, 2015 4:31 PM  

Hard experience has shown a general problem with anonymizing data, but what's important about this data can be safely anonymized. They're hiding something, or maybe don't want people to run simulations of it with the various proposed changes to the nominating system.

Blogger DaveofSpades September 07, 2015 4:31 PM  

Looks like we just need some good hackers.

Blogger Travis Landenwitsch September 07, 2015 4:35 PM  

Unless the RP and SP were the ones who forced through the resolution at the business meeting this seems like much ado about nothing. Unless you are of the opinion the people who voted for the resolution were too dumb to realize such a resolution could reveal their own slate.

Blogger Floyd Looney September 07, 2015 4:38 PM  

This does sound very suspicious although I am totally ignorant of why it would be hard to delete names and such.

Anonymous Nathan September 07, 2015 4:43 PM  

@17

Yep. The puppykickers have consistently played the reactive game of tactics without any thought to strategy.

Anonymous Bz September 07, 2015 4:44 PM  

Very interesting. Perhaps someone could start by asking them for the technical reasons behind their decision. I assume too the data will reveal some embarrassing hidden slate voting.

I think revealing the anonymized voting data for the last 20 years or so could be illuminating. Good idea.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 4:44 PM  

The fact that they are trying to hide something means that there is something to hide.

Blogger Sage Klubb September 07, 2015 4:48 PM  

"Unless you are of the opinion the people who voted for the resolution were too dumb to realize such a resolution could reveal their own slate."

I remember reading those threads at Making Light when an expert had to explain to them why their various schemes would backfire. They really aren't terribly bright, or at least they are easily clouded by their biases and hatreds.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy September 07, 2015 4:49 PM  

@13: This calls for a binding resolution at the next meeting to force them to release the nominating data from the last 20 years and all years going forward.

Sorry, no can do— there were only ever two copies of all those datasets, and those were stored on Lois Lerner's laptop and Hillary Clinton's e-mail server.

Blogger VD September 07, 2015 4:53 PM  

Unless you are of the opinion the people who voted for the resolution were too dumb to realize such a resolution could reveal their own slate.

That doesn't even make any sense. The people who voted for it didn't necessarily include those who would be exposed by the data. Looking at the nominations, I'm not even seeing anything obvious pop out at me. The one thing we know is that they're not afraid to try to embarrass the Puppies; they actually released what proved to be a false statement about John Wright and me not being registered as any kind of member.

Anonymous Wyrd September 07, 2015 5:04 PM  

Who bitch this is?

Anonymous Menelaus September 07, 2015 5:06 PM  

sasquan response to request to release the data:

What wasn't included in Glenn's statement is that this year's Hugo system administrators are working with a committee composed of proponents of EPH, so that proposal can be tested without any privacy violations that might occur by releasing the data with no controls.

As Hugo administrators, we have always assure members that their votes are private and secret, and we don't want to do something that might change that. That is our primary responsibility.

John Lorentz
Sasquan Hugo Administrator

Anonymous RedJack #22 September 07, 2015 5:16 PM  

They can release my vote. Heck, I will even post it.

What I suspect it will show is that the SP/RP voters had more variety, while the TORlings voted the same.

Or it will show that 10,000 dead people in Chicago voted.

Blogger jay c September 07, 2015 5:19 PM  

Oh, well. If there's a committee involved, I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Anonymous PLC September 07, 2015 5:22 PM  

Well, even if they don't release it to the public, in the interest of fairness they have to at least give a second committee, composed of opponents of EPH, access to the data. I doubt Vox cares whether EPH passes. But I'm against it and maybe some people here oppose it too. I probably dont have sufficient technical or stat skill to parse the data, but perhaps someone else here does.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 September 07, 2015 5:23 PM  

I suspected the vote was going to be fraudulent from the beginning. Maybe the problem they're having is that the votes really aren't there in the first place. They just made up vote totals that sounded good to them. Remember, they consider Noah Ward as a victory, even though they burned their own house down. (with this road flare right here.)

Anonymous Steve, The Dark Ninja of Mockery September 07, 2015 5:24 PM  

The other robot - You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Menelaus - that statement from Lorentz doesn't make an ounce of sense.

How would releasing anonymised data breach anybody's privacy?

For that matter, why were the final voting tallies so much lower than the number of paid members? An unusually high number of people bought associate memberships and didn't vote?

Blogger Salt September 07, 2015 5:24 PM  

What would they be using? Excel? Can't name and ID be pulled? Generate a random number for each nominator? Release.

What's absolutely visible is, they burned it down. Next up, nominations for 2016.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2015 5:26 PM  

An unusually high number of people bought associate memberships and didn't vote?

That is bizarre.

Blogger Marc DuQuesne September 07, 2015 5:26 PM  

The creators of a proposal crafted on Making Light, the blog of the TORlings, will be the ones to verify everything is on the up and up?

Seriously?

Anonymous LurkingPuppy September 07, 2015 5:35 PM  

@31: An unusually high number of people bought associate memberships and didn't vote?

A supporting membership for Sasquan cost 40 USD; a supporting membership for MidAmeriCon 2 will cost 50 USD. If the Puppy-Kickers' Cabal really really wanted to hold the nominations next year, without showing their full investment this year, buying a bunch of Sasquan memberships and then not voting in this year's Hugos would accomplish that more cheaply than buying MAC2 memberships.

It is also possible that a bunch of Puppy supporters bought memberships and then forgot to vote, or didn't know what they were supposed to do with the memberships they bought, but at this point, I'm inclined to attribute anything the least bit suspicious to enemy action.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 5:42 PM  

Someone has already created a list of works eligible for a Hugo in 2016.

I see that Not our kind is one. Perhaps it is aimed at puppies.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 5:43 PM  

Does supporting membership this year get us the right to nominate works next year?

Blogger James Dixon September 07, 2015 5:47 PM  

> ...yet I'm having trouble imagining a circumstance in which this data could not be easily anonymized.

I agree.

> Except, or course, if it shows that one individual, or a small number of individuals, purchased a large number of supporting memberships.

The whole point of anonymizing the data is that you have no idea who voted for what, merely what the votes were.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2015 5:51 PM  

I see that Not our kind is one. Perhaps it is aimed at puppies.

SJWsAL and SJWsNL are both now in the list :)

Blogger Student in Blue September 07, 2015 5:52 PM  

Does anyone know the best way to get in contact with Sasquan?

Anonymous Rigel Kent September 07, 2015 5:53 PM  

I remember Sara Hoyt mentioning on her blog thinking something fishy had gone on with the voting, but she hadn't looked into it deeply so wasn't certain.

Blogger maniacprovost September 07, 2015 5:54 PM  

This is the gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous pjw September 07, 2015 5:54 PM  

There's of course a boring possibility, that they're just withholding the data because they think doing so will hurt Kate's ability to make recommendations for EPH.

But Vox already noted that slate discipline was relatively low. It's possible that all the ballots were unique or appeared only occasionally in duplicate or triplicate, but one of the SJWs filled out 30 or 40 identical ballots, thinking they would blend in with all the Puppies' identical ballots (projecting). Presumably the worst-case scenario is that someone looks into it and it turns out Rape² or some other author personally stuffed the nomination, although embarrassingly not enough to actually stop the Puppies. Leftoids generally know the narrative without having to collude directly, so if one person did stuff the ballot it's likely they didn't bother to tell anyone.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop VFM #0167 September 07, 2015 5:55 PM  

@35. LurkingPuppy September 07, 2015 5:35 PM

@31: An unusually high number of people bought associate memberships and didn't vote?

A supporting membership for Sasquan cost 40 USD; a supporting membership for MidAmeriCon 2 will cost 50 USD. If the Puppy-Kickers' Cabal really really wanted to hold the nominations next year, without showing their full investment this year, buying a bunch of Sasquan memberships and then not voting in this year's Hugos would accomplish that more cheaply...

That's sounds like a viable theory. A lot of the new memberships were added in the final weeks ahead of Sasquan, quite a few even after the voting had closed. I'm not finding that chart right now; it's somewhere on the Sasqaun site. Maybe a total of 11K memberships, with maybe 2K added in the three-week period after the voting closed and before the con started. There probably couldn't have been very many Attending of that last ~2K because hotels were already full up and the very few rooms left were overpriced by then (airfare too). I checked into that the week before Sasquan. Worldcon memberships in prior years were maybe 5K total.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2015 5:55 PM  

Ppl are already down voting them at Goodreads. Need puppies.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 5:58 PM  

SJWs operating in secret collusion to collaborate against their opponents? Using corrupt means to manipulate public appearance, backing astroturf campaigns, and projecting their misdeeds on to their opponents? SJWs rigging voting and rating mechanisms?

Hmm. Seems strangely familiar....

Anonymous BGS Strikes Back September 07, 2015 5:58 PM  

http://prog-musicians-doing-things.tumblr.com/post/123411696420/and-we-are-back-from-the-dead-with-this-classic

Blogger VD September 07, 2015 6:04 PM  

Does supporting membership this year get us the right to nominate works next year?

Yes. No need to buy new memberships. I would not recommend doing so yet. This needs to be investigated.

Blogger Jack Ward September 07, 2015 6:06 PM  

Early on this last year I was wondering on this blog whether Sasquan could be trusted to do an honest vote. Vox and others assured me that they could based on pass years voting.
Well, maybe that confidence was misplaced. Frankly, I don't think they will ever release any data that would shine any negative light on Tor or the sjw PTB. If so, then this means no one will ever clean up the Hugos. Hope I'm wrong; but, at this point, I suspect all the energy should be redirected into an honest and well run alternate award. If I were a billionaire I would happily spend some major money to do this and provide some very handsome prize money for the winners. Alas.....

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 6:12 PM  

Stories for Chip (child-molester) Delaney needs to be down voted.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 6:17 PM  

Ahhh, we have another work worthy of nomination:

John Scalzi is Not a Rapist: A Respected Grand Master of Science Fiction Refutes Certain Allegations Made by a Devoted but Mistaken Fan

This one has 41 pages, and no doubt has 10 Chapter Fives.

(Author: Richard Milhous Scalzi)

Anonymous Rolf September 07, 2015 6:17 PM  

Perhaps there are a large number of supporting memberships that voted "no award and nothing else" in five categories, and much more randomly (or not at all, or in an obvious fifty-votes-here, fifty-votes-there pattern) elsewhere. That would certainly reveal a slate-mentality among the puppy-kickers.

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 6:19 PM  

OK, I was wrong. Only 5 Chapter Fives, but the Appendices are awesome and make up for the missing Chapter Fives.

Blogger epobirs September 07, 2015 6:27 PM  

I haven't spoken to him in many years but Glenn used to be a friend of mine. I hope he hasn't been sucked into this morass of corruption.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 07, 2015 6:28 PM  

Just to be clear, the quote sounds like they are refusing to release anonymized ballots for nominations, not for the actual awards. So whatever they're hiding here has to do with nominations and not the award votes.

I would assume what they are hiding is that almost every nomination for PNH or McRapey had nearly exactly the same nominations for the other categories, while noms for Vox and JCW were far more varied.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2015 6:29 PM  

@53 Tor, (really?) the "look inside" is great.

Blogger epobirs September 07, 2015 6:30 PM  

This is absurd. Access 95 running on a 486 should be able to produce that report in about five minutes. This is supposed to be a tech savvy crowd.

Anonymous Achilles September 07, 2015 6:31 PM  

Maybe the unused memberships aren't part of some future SJW plot but evidence of crimes already committed? Membership numbers were being announced regularly. If the Puppies swept the awards and Sasquan is rotten their only choice was to delete ballots and hope people didn't raise a stink over unused memberships.

Blogger wrf3 September 07, 2015 6:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous rubberducky September 07, 2015 6:34 PM  

Makes no sense. You publish the ballots without the names, wash and done. Oh, there's anomalies in registration totals? No problem. Publish the data, more eyes on the problem will solve the anomaly issue faster that a few eyes on the problem.

Or, will all those eyes see something you don't like? Sure looks that way, people are naturally suspicious, they'll land here with this conclusion easily unless you stop them with total upfront honesty and release all the data.

Anonymous Gary September 07, 2015 6:39 PM  

Its not the votes that count but who counts the votes.

Blogger Eric September 07, 2015 6:39 PM  

I work in healthcare and I work with patient data all the time. I must work in the constraints of HIPAA. Are they trying to say that member voting data is more difficult to anonymize than patient data?

I'd be happy to personally show them how easy it is.

Blogger wrf3 September 07, 2015 6:40 PM  

Vox: First, is there a link to the source?

Second, what do you expect to see that isn't on pages 18-26 of 2015HugoStatistics [pdf]?

Blogger Eric September 07, 2015 6:40 PM  

I work in healthcare and I work with patient data all the time. I must work in the constraints of HIPAA. Are they trying to say that member voting data is more difficult to anonymize than patient data?

I'd be happy to personally show them how easy it is.

Blogger Jack Ward September 07, 2015 6:40 PM  

@55 Jack Amok
Good point I failed to realize. I voted in the awards but was not eligible for the nominations. Thanks for the clarity.

Anonymous Ain September 07, 2015 6:40 PM  

Travis Landenwitsch: "Unless the RP and SP were the ones who forced through the resolution at the business meeting this seems like much ado about nothing. Unless you are of the opinion the people who voted for the resolution were too dumb to realize such a resolution could reveal their own slate."

SJW's *never* follow their own rules - they are always created as a weapon to use against their targets. In their arrogance they had full confidence in it not applying to them. The fix was already in.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 07, 2015 6:49 PM  

57. epobirs September 07, 2015 6:30 PM
This is absurd. Access 95 running on a 486 should be able to produce that report in about five minutes. This is supposed to be a tech savvy crowd.
----

Maybe they are running Lotus Notes on a 386 SX?

All kidding aside, I also thought they might be keeping this data in a spreadsheet and the spreadsheet guru is no longer available.

Blogger Jack Ward September 07, 2015 6:53 PM  

@63 That's a reasonable question. It may be that any wash of id would conceal possible block buys of memberships/slate activity other than the Pups. Who knows?
I do know this. All those memberships; the record numbers of them, are probably able to vote in next years nominations. How to counter this I leave to the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil. I can obey as well as any acknowledged VFM any day. Just command me. If the command seems reasonable, of course.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 07, 2015 6:58 PM  

Specifically, upon review, the administration team believes it may not be possible to anonymize the nominating data sufficiently to allow for a public release. We are investigating alternatives.
-----------

So many questions. If this is about nominations, then I wonder what the problem could be. The various Puppies kinda rocked the nominations. Or so we are led to believe.

I'm not sure what it is that they would be hiding regarding the nominations process. Could this be about something unrelated, as a distraction or smokescreen?

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 6:59 PM  

While it is very early to tell, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they did everything in their power to tip or rig things. It is what the left does. All those democratic counties in 2012 that had more votes for Obama than registered voters?

Anonymous Geoff September 07, 2015 6:59 PM  

@51

"these completely false, yet enticing claims have recently been lengthened and hardened, to throbbing proportions"

Sounds like a literary masterpiece.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 7:02 PM  

@53

The people, particularly those who are differently intelligent, demand exact equality of results in chapter numbers. Thus, social consciousness is maximized through exactly five chapter fives. No more, no less. We will not discuss the hateful, bigoted number equal to half of eight.

Blogger Noah B #120 September 07, 2015 7:02 PM  

Mail and wire fraud are predicate RICO offenses, if I'm not mistaken.

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 07, 2015 7:07 PM  

@54 Glenn may be only slightly corrupt in this. Honestly I could see one of the Con members responsible for putting the data together contacting PNH directly and warning him what the data reveals. Con member then is told to make up a BS story about how privacy can't be maintained and push that narrative upward. Then PNH just so happens to make a call to Glenn and says "you know I was thinking that people's privacy could be exposed if you release this data. If that happened it would reflect poorly on Sasquan. It might make it tough for them to get a bid in the future". Then seemingly out of no where one of the people working on the data shows up and says it can't be anonymized.

@63 The data we are looking for would show how each unique voter voted in each category.
So if John voted for Ancillary pronoun in novels and voted for PNH in editor you could see that. Except they would anonymize the data so instead of John you see voter number 123 voted in each of those categories.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 7:17 PM  

The question is what actual advantage they could get out of it. If there was some advantage, and they thought they could keep it secret, I can't see ethics getting in the way of their next decision.

If it does turn out they were up to something, well... lock, load, and light the fires.

Blogger Travis Landenwitsch September 07, 2015 7:19 PM  

Anthony Gillis,

Please show me one reputable source that proves in 2012 President Obama recieved more votes than registered voters.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop VFM #0167 September 07, 2015 7:32 PM  

Can't find the chart that shows the membership numbers over the months preceding Sasquan. It was linked to on a VP post sometime in July.

Sasquan Announces Record Participation in the 2015 Hugo Awards Voting 4 August 2015
" Sasquan is pleased to announce that it received a record­breaking 5,950 valid ballots for the 2015 Hugo Awards. 5,914 voters used the online voting system and 36 submitted paper ballots. The 5,950 total surpasses the vote total record for previous years (3,587 ballots, set by Loncon in 2014) by more than 65%. More than 57% of the convention members eligible to vote cast ballots this year, making this the highest level of participation in Hugo Awards voting in the past decade."


5950/0.57 = ~10,439 members as of July 31, the last day to vote.

sasquansf ‏@sasquansf Aug 22
11,330 members! Largest Worldcon ever! Most Supporting Members! Most Hugo Voters! We had a blue sky today! #sasquan #HugoAwards

11,330 - 10,439 = 891

If the information is true, something like 891 new members joined Sasquan after the voting had closed.

Blogger Robert What? September 07, 2015 7:50 PM  

@Noah, mail and wire fraud are not punishable offenses if you are a Liberal Democrat

Anonymous Forrest Bishop VFM #0167 September 07, 2015 7:57 PM  

Additional data-

sasquansf ‏@sasquansf Aug 20
As of the close of registration last night, Sasquan is happy to announce that we have 10, 965 total members and 3515 warm bodies on site.

sasquansf ‏@sasquansf Aug 21
As of Thurs night, Sasquan has 11,149 total members & 4394 warm bodies, the biggest Worldcon ever re: total members.

sasquansf ‏@sasquansf Aug 7
Hugo voting stats: The breakdown of Hugo voters is: Attending (all types): 1874
Supporting: 4076

Here's the chart I was thinking of-
http://sasquan.org/member-numbers/#types

11,648 total members. Some of these appear to be Attending that joined on the day of the con.

Anonymous Viidad September 07, 2015 8:01 PM  

@The other robot

LOL

Just bought it.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 8:08 PM  

@76

*yawn* Oh look, a troll.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 07, 2015 8:23 PM  

I keep thinking of silly illogical things that might be behind this. But we might be dealing with SJWs here.

Maybe they don't want the con to continue to grow. Crazy, yes.
But going down this rabbit hole, this story comes out to discourage any new members wasting $50 on a membership to what now seems a little shady.

Then perhaps the numbers won't get so large that they can't still control it.

Blogger Floyd Looney September 07, 2015 8:34 PM  

@76 I think those reports are only for specific counties and only a few of them. We do know there are a bunch of counties with more registered voters than people.

Voting rolls need to be erased after every election, IMO

Blogger Floyd Looney September 07, 2015 8:43 PM  

@51 And another one! So much genius out there.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 07, 2015 8:59 PM  

While we truly wish to comply with the resolution and fundamentally believe in transparent processes, we must hold the privacy of our members paramount and I hope that you understand this set of priorities.

That is such a self-satisfied and self-serving statement, it sounds like a typical lying SJW. Which is "more paramount," keeping information about participants secret, or ensuring an honest process and vote so as to come up with an accurate result? If secrecy is "paramount," how far down the list is "honest election results"?

Blogger Daniel September 07, 2015 9:08 PM  

While we wish we could comply we wash our hands of all responsibility.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 07, 2015 9:16 PM  

mail and wire fraud are not punishable offenses if you are a Liberal Democrat

Assuming you're still in good standing with the Central Committee. Which, ah, you're never quite sure of, even if you are on the Central Committee.

Blogger Brad Andrews September 07, 2015 9:29 PM  

Things like this make me suspicious that votes for "the wrong things" magically didn't vote. Then the anonymity of the people running it would be ruined if we found a bunch of votes for Puppy works got nuked by just not counting them at all.

That may nor have happened, especially if this really is for the nominations, but it seems like a distinct possibility and should ruin the reputations of all involved if the numbers are not revealed.

Blogger Danby September 07, 2015 9:32 PM  

Don't we have an auditor on our side?

Blogger Jim Rizzi September 07, 2015 9:33 PM  

"We believe in transparency almost as much as we don't."

I don't even pretend to understand this cluster.

Blogger buwaya puti September 07, 2015 9:42 PM  

I wonder if there is some way to figure out if some large number of supporting memberships were purchased out of a single bank account or credit card. It seems too easy to just automate a bunch of straw buyers and straw voters.
It would take less than 100K to buy the Hugos I think.

Blogger Peter September 07, 2015 9:56 PM  

Thanks for posting this, Vox. I've re-blogged it on my site with a few pointed remarks:

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-precisely-is-going-on-with-hugo.html

One does wonder what they're up to. The answer might be . . . entertaining.

Anonymous Rolf September 07, 2015 10:02 PM  

We have another one.
If you were an SJW, My Love".
Looks like the Hydra has been unleashed, and had a head or two chopped off. Eventually it may not be funny, but not yet.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 07, 2015 10:04 PM  

Things like this make me suspicious that votes for "the wrong things" magically didn't vote. Then the anonymity of the people running it would be ruined if we found a bunch of votes for Puppy works got nuked by just not counting them at all.

Well, there may well be questions about the legitimacy of the final votes, but again, unless the quote above is just wrong, this is a question about the nominations and we know the nominations were fairly counted because the Puppies were the works that showed up on the final ballot.

They're hiding something other than vote-counting here. Non-puppy slates seems the most likely to me.

Anonymous t September 07, 2015 10:05 PM  

The Scalzi-nazis took a BM on the Hugos.

Blogger Zaklog the Great September 07, 2015 10:08 PM  

@51 Ah ha! I am excited to see that someone ran with the idea I came up with. (I don't know if they heard it from me or got it independently, but I mention it here a while back.) If Scalzi gets a book banned titled John Scalzi Is a Rapist, then just publish one titled John Scalzi Is Absolutely Totally Not a Rapist (Why Would You Ever Think That?). Fervently denying something like that for no reason is almost the same as asserting it.

Anonymous I never knew I had it in me September 07, 2015 10:12 PM  

You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/463533/Soldier-reveals-homosexuality-Star-Wars-book

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 10:13 PM  

John Scalzi Is Absolutely Totally Not a Rapist (Why Would You Ever Think That?).

The next one could be "Jim Hines is not a child molester"

or "John Scalzi is not a wanker"

Blogger Marc DuQuesne September 07, 2015 10:19 PM  

@63 The quote is from an email sent to those who had requested the data.

Looking at the work Chaos Horizon has done with the numbers available in the PDF you can clearly see the limitations of the supplied information. The nomination data will let us know:

1. How many slates there were in competition
2. How good party discipline was for the various slates
3. How many voted mixed slates of sad/rabid, TOR/SJW, etc.
4. How the 4/6 and EPH proposals would have affected the outcome of the competing slates

Blogger J Van Stry September 07, 2015 10:25 PM  

someone needs to look up the laws on non-profits. I'm not sure that the voters actually have a right to privacy in this case.
Maybe someone needs to file a legal complaint?

Anonymous The other robot September 07, 2015 10:32 PM  

someone needs to look up the laws on non-profits. I'm not sure that the voters actually have a right to privacy in this case.
Maybe someone needs to file a legal complaint?


This. Use all the applicable laws against them.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 10:42 PM  

@98

Jim Hines and the rest of the Special Bear Club are on my list. Though likely before that, Rape Rape Moretons will get a book of his own.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 10:48 PM  

@99

Wouldn't it be entertaining--yet predictable under Vox's Three Laws of SJWs, if the Puppy Kickers, after all their sanctimonious talk about slates, were using them?

OpenID cglasgow99 September 07, 2015 11:00 PM  

#103 -- remember, /SJWs always project/. If they accuse you of doing X, they are totally wallowing in X themselves.

Blogger Daniel September 07, 2015 11:18 PM  

The SJWs have been using slates for decades, and were in fact openly told to so in the early days of the Hugos. These morons are like the inbred who thinks he is covering up incest by hiding his dick in his sister.

Blogger Floyd Looney September 07, 2015 11:20 PM  

@93

13 pages! Oh come on. :p

Blogger Sage Klubb September 08, 2015 12:26 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Sage Klubb September 08, 2015 12:29 AM  

@97

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought."

Who saw that coming? Disney has already introduced Star Wars' first gay stormtrooper.

The book is being torn to shreds by readers on Amazon, though. One says Wendig's prose makes his eyes bleed. "The TIE wibbles and wobbles through the air, careening drunkenly across the Myrrann rooftops - it zigzags herkily-jerkily out of sight."

But, gay stormtrooper. Give that book a Hugo!

Blogger BADKarma! September 08, 2015 12:41 AM  

Nothing to see here. Move along. You EvilRacistWhiteChristianHomo/IslamophobicRepublicanEvilEvil(tm).

Blogger Sage Klubb September 08, 2015 12:44 AM  

Looking at Wendig's twitter, seems he and his fans think all the one star reviews are written by bullies who hate gays, and not because he writes sentences about TIE fighters wibble-wobbling and herky-jerkying. I looked through the one star reviews and saw nothing but legitimate gripes about weak character development, present tense narration, and things that didn't make any sense in context of the established Star Wars universe.

OpenID mickoneverything September 08, 2015 12:44 AM  

I keep looking for hints of this elsewhere, and finding nothing. Why aren't any other bloggers on the Pups side on this yet?

Blogger eharmonica September 08, 2015 1:07 AM  

http://file770.com/?p=24790

Lorentz's comments are odd:
"You also need to eliminate any nominations that are unique to one or a handful of people, as otherwise those nominations could be used to identify people."

And:
"When one of them generated a draft of anonymized nominating data, it didn’t take the other very long to determine who some of the voters were, simply from the voting patterns."

What does he mean? Does any of that make any sense?


Anonymous dh September 08, 2015 1:45 AM  

> "You also need to eliminate any nominations that are unique to one or a handful of people, as otherwise those nominations could be used to identify people."

This is because a lot of people posted their ballots, or most of their ballots. If you can match up part of a known unique ballot to a real person, you may able to reveal the rest of the known ballot.

> "When one of them generated a draft of anonymized nominating data, it didn’t take the other very long to determine who some of the voters were, simply from the voting patterns."

The rest of the sentence would be

"..because of what we already know about their ballot".

This is basically people afraid of having their full ballot identified based on how they said they nominated people in specific categories already, based on what is published around the internet freely.

This is and should be treated as tough cookies. Nominators were happy to share some of their ballot information, and now don't want it all released because it may show something they don't want being public.

Anonymous dh September 08, 2015 1:46 AM  

I should also point out that based on the available data, it is not knowable if there were any other nominating slates. It's entirely possible that SP/RP were not the only slates in effect, and that these are only more popular because of their size.

Anonymous Rolf September 08, 2015 2:08 AM  

@114 - THIS.
They don't want to have their attempt at slating the nominations exposed. THAT makes sense. Because he who controls the nominations controls the possible winners.

Anonymous Rolf September 08, 2015 2:11 AM  

@106 - Nobody ever said the new hydra heads were SMART hydra heads, or that they grew back as big as before... Hmmm... Logarithmic length fall-off, simple inverse, or asymptotic?

Blogger Sage Klubb September 08, 2015 3:03 AM  

@97 got me going. Sorry this is so OT.

Started in reading some of Wendig's book with an open mind. It really is terrible. The one/two star reviews are right. There are spots that made me *cringe*.

Best guess, dude has a solid base of SJW fans who have floated his previous work. He's in with the in-crowd. Gets to write a key Star Wars novel that will expose him to a far greater audience than ever before. But upon exposure, readers outside of his bubble are aghast. They can't believe how bad it is, and they're saying so. Wendig and his in-crowd can't believe they're being forced to accept honest criticism from outside the bubble, so they resort to name-calling: all Star Wars fans who think his book bites are homophobes. Plus, conspiracy!

Feeding Wendig's paranoia is that all the "right people" are praising his book (SJW critics and SJW peers). So it doesn't make any sense to him that actual readers are trashing it.

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 08, 2015 3:15 AM  

@Forrest Bishop

"f the information is true, something like 891 new members joined Sasquan after the voting had closed."

As a cynic that suggests to me a plan to stuff the Business Meeting.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 08, 2015 3:20 AM  

@96

Zaklog, I didn't see your original idea. I came up with it independently, in a moment of evil chuckling. Good to see we agree on the cruel beauty of it! And yep, Scalzi451 himself unwittingly led the way when he banned "John Scalzi is a Rapist".

I look forward to seeing if he tries to ban this on, and what follows. Good times.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burn'in Up! September 08, 2015 3:24 AM  

Nope, the puppies wont look bad, what is happening may have the opposite outcome of what was intended or not.

Interesting. I will continue to wait n' see what happens next in very questionable, untenable business practices/antics.

I continue to lose respect for or confidence in certain professionals who are sabotaging themselves, making fools of themselves on a regular basis.

Data and basic common sense is ignored, thus such antics remain inappropriate, deceptive.

All for what - what interference and distractions ALL from fools.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 08, 2015 3:38 AM  

Since I'm the guy with the hydra nickname, I'll note I'm only behind two of the books floating around at this point: 'SJWs Never Lie', and 'John Scalzi is Not a Rapist'. My parody tracts are under the TOAD Books imprint, separate from my novels.

I don't know who 'Alexa Eren' of rapist/banned book fame is, even by screen name, though some here might.

Nor do I know who wrote 'If You Were an SJW My Love'. It was short... but also only 99c, so no complaints.

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 08, 2015 4:13 AM  

OT: Had a fun facebook moment last night. I'd previously been invited to join an Anonymous group and had done so. Last night some wanker posts a pure SJW code of conduct about everyone being welcome and bla bla bla, to which I responded "Who are you? What authority do you have to tell other people how to behave? Go away."

Next minute "This content is no longer available."

Apparently the wanker concerned was the group admin. C'est la vie.

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 08, 2015 7:23 AM  

"You also need to eliminate any nominations that are unique to one or a handful of people, as otherwise those nominations could be used to identify people. But then those ballots aren’t actually representative for the purpose of testing the algorithm. So you need to actually replace those with other nominations, that happen not to perturb the algorithm in any way."

So, they are going to remove some votes and then replace them on other works? This sounds like heavy book cooking. I am now suspicious of anything they release.

Their whole argument about making sure the voting is anonymous is kind of comical.The only thing they can cite is that people openly disclosed parts of their ballot but want to keep other parts secret? My thought on that is if you were willing to publicly disclose part of your ballot you kind of have a weak argument for keeping the rest of it secret. It also means you publicly disclosed voting for more than one obscure work that did not collect many votes.

Their level of supposed concern is way out of proportion to what the real consequences would be if we found out how they are voting if they are simply worried about being identified. They cite Doxxing etc but they are likely already publicly SJWs so why would their vote trigger an attack if we already know who they are and how they likely voted? The more likely truth is the data has some damning evidence of other hidden slates and we would be able to identify some of the participants in those slates.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 08, 2015 8:31 AM  

This is because a lot of people posted their ballots, or most of their ballots. If you can match up part of a known unique ballot to a real person, you may able to reveal the rest of the known ballot.

For instance: say John Scalzi blogged about nominating a couple of very obscure stories about gay stormtroopers. They release the nominations with names removed, but there's only one ballot with those two stories on it -- and it also has a nomination for Vox Day as Editor! Say what?

Ironically, the people who wouldn't be in any danger of identification would be the ones who voted a complete slate, because their ballot would be identical to many others, offering no way to identify them.

Anonymous joe doakes September 08, 2015 8:57 AM  

I wonder how many straight-ticket Puppies ballots were ruled "spoiled" and disqualified? Since they have my unique identifier and my e-mail, couldn't they have notified me so I could correct it?

Blogger dlw September 08, 2015 9:15 AM  

> Tor buying supporting memberships for its employees?

They're SJWs. Tor won't buy memberships for its employees, it'll simply instruct the Torlings to pay out of their own pockets. With a strong suggestion they buy a few "gift" memberships too...

Blogger Brad Andrews September 08, 2015 10:16 AM  

I wonder how many straight-ticket Puppies ballots were ruled "spoiled" and disqualified? Since they have my unique identifier and my e-mail, couldn't they have notified me so I could correct it?

I don't see how an online ballot could be spoiled. You fill out the given form and it didn't allow invalid choices IIRC.

Seems more and more like monkey business.

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 08, 2015 10:19 AM  

Monkey business, indeed.

But, gay stormtrooper. Give that book a Hugo!

I'm torn.  What's the better strategy:

1.)  Put one such joke-work on the Hugo ballot so the SJWs have a choice between bloc-voting for it or Noah Ward, making jokes of themselves.
2.)  Put several such joke-works on to split the SJW vote and get them to lose.

Anonymous The other robot September 08, 2015 10:28 AM  

Has anyone looked at the appropriate laws to see if members of a non-profit can have an expectation of privacy?

It also might be that the appropriate laws allow any member to ask to see the nomination information.

Blogger Brad Andrews September 08, 2015 10:30 AM  

I had expected my votes to all be published. This is a complete shift in direction and seems to just be covering a favored party.

Anonymous The other robot September 08, 2015 10:32 AM  

Having looked at IRS Non Profits

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests,

That might present a problem for Tor, given how many of its authors have won Hugos.

Anonymous The other robot September 08, 2015 10:36 AM  

Ironically, the people who wouldn't be in any danger of identification would be the ones who voted a complete slate, because their ballot would be identical to many others, offering no way to identify them.

You are mixing two things up here: Nominating and voting.

It's the nominations that we are interested in.

(All of a sudden Google is extremely interested in peanuts and road signs.)

Anonymous The other robot September 08, 2015 10:37 AM  

That might present a problem for Tor, given how many of its authors have won Hugos.

I should have said that Tor might present a problem because a look at the Hugos over the last few years would suggest that it has been operated for Tor's benefit.

Anonymous Donn #0114 September 08, 2015 10:38 AM  

I was hoping there was an 'update' by the time I woke up. Seems there won't be one and Sasquan will truly be the first asterisks Hugos. I wonder how many were bought and paid for by Tor?

Anonymous Donn #0114 September 08, 2015 10:50 AM  

The shinanigans probably occurred at both phases. The nominations because Tor knew a head of time they weren't getting the noms and had press releases ready to go to various 'news' outlets.

The actual voting because there were obvious vote buying by SJW parties. They admitted they were vote buying. I'll bet the Tor company meetings went like this, "We need your support this year for something special. Our very way of life and our freedom of speech is being threatened."

Now Sasquan says individual ballots would identify individual people? How, by posting their name and address? Out of ten thousand ballots you could have, "I'll love you long time on Cheeto Stained Mattress," nominated in all five slots and no one would know who did it. There was so much bullshit flowing out of their mouths you couldn't identify anyone.

Anonymous The other robot September 08, 2015 11:02 AM  

I should have said that Tor might present a problem because a look at the Hugos over the last few years would suggest that it has been operated for Tor's benefit.

I guess that the other problem is the distributed nature of the Hugos. No single Non Profit is involved, and there are some orgs outside the US as well.

Blogger Lockestep September 08, 2015 11:24 AM  

You could not spoil an online ballot. No minimum on categories voted, and in any voted category you could vote a single work. Plus the only choices from the drop down were 1-5, and once you assigned a number it became unavailable in the remaining drop downs for the category.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 08, 2015 12:22 PM  

Now Sasquan says individual ballots would identify individual people?

Let's say you were the only person to nominate Cheeto Stained Mattress. Or you nominated some unusual combination of works that no one else nominated.

AND let's say you were public about those nominations, so they could be matched up to your name.

AND let's say you made some other nominations that you weren't public about because they could embarrass you. Or you lied about other nominations, claiming to have nominated works you didn't.

THEN it's possible that releasing your nominations without any identifying information could still identify and hurt you: IF you were public about some of your nominations AND needing to keep others secret.

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 08, 2015 1:29 PM  

@138. I thought of this as well. I think there is a possibility that slate voting on some categories might appear and you might be able to identify some of the slate voters based on their votes in the obscure category.

The other scenario might be that someone who was vocal about how terrible the nominated Puppy works were might have actually voted for some of them and also voted on an obscure work in one category. It could be embarrassing to have bashed a work that you yourself nominated for the Hugo.

Blogger Daniel September 08, 2015 2:08 PM  

There's a gay stormtrooper book? Huh. Sales must be on the skids. Tie-ins were never so desperate for a Hugo before...

Anonymous Jim Milo September 08, 2015 2:26 PM  

@57 @67 They're using a comptometer. Abacus was too slow.

Anonymous Jim Milo September 08, 2015 2:39 PM  

@73 Which accounting firm did they hire to audit the results?

They did hire an accountant.... r-r-right?

Anonymous Jim Milo September 08, 2015 3:03 PM  

@138 There is deduction, and then there is releasing names.

If people of their own accord decide to release their noms, that's their problem. They have plausible deniability since no name means no proof.

It's a non-issue and I suspect shenanigans.

Blogger Floyd Looney September 08, 2015 3:37 PM  

Is there a gay stormtrooper parody in the works with a big smileyface on the cover somewhere.... time will tell

Blogger Were-Puppy September 08, 2015 3:58 PM  

@111
This comes out during DragonCon weekend. Let many of them return home then it'll probably get more attention.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 08, 2015 4:15 PM  

@121 Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery
Since I'm the guy with the hydra nickname, I'll note I'm only behind two of the books floating around at this point: 'SJWs Never Lie', and 'John Scalzi is Not a Rapist'. My parody tracts are under the TOAD Books imprint, separate from my novels.
----

I really enjoyed your contributions to the parody pile.

Anonymous BGS September 08, 2015 4:16 PM  

I don't know when I hear leftists say they are too stupid to do things other people/groups are able to do I usually believe them. For example I am sure leftists believe that non Asian minorities actually are too stupid and lazy to get VOTER ID just like leftists argue.

Blogger SciVo September 08, 2015 4:26 PM  

Mr. Rational @128: "1.) Put one such joke-work on the Hugo ballot so the SJWs have a choice between bloc-voting for it or Noah Ward, making jokes of themselves.
2.) Put several such joke-works on to split the SJW vote and get them to lose."

3.) Nominate one high-quality politically-incorrect work that actually deserves a Hugo, and make the rest all SJW-approved crap work like Star Wars: Aftermath.

Reasoning: If there's exactly one deserving nominee on the ballot, then they have to choose between voting for No Award when there's a quality work on the ballot (again); voting for icky triggering Straight White Men Doing Manly Things in Space; or voting for an undeserving work that hits all the right feelgoods for them. It's a lot like your #1, except that it will maximally split their votes, while focusing all of ours on one.

Either a good work that we like wins, or they burn it down again, or -- possibly best of all -- they vote a slate in the final and award something unreadable, thoroughly disproving both of their false claims (that they love quality and hate slates more than they love political correctness). Win/win/win.

Blogger SciVo September 08, 2015 4:30 PM  

Sorry, I mean it's basically your #2 except exactly all but one. Derp.

Anonymous BigGaySteve September 08, 2015 4:32 PM  

Whoever @47 is it is not me.

Blogger Sage Klubb September 08, 2015 4:43 PM  

@144

Ugh. Ugh!! UGH!!!

Gay stormtrooper (or gay X-wing pilot, or whatever, I really don't know) isn't really that big a deal, except Wendig and his paranoid fans are using it as a cudgel against all the honest-sounding one/two-star reviews.

But this...this is creepy. Doesn't that crowd already stink from NAMBLA association? From one reviewer who read the whole book: after the gay character is propositioned by a woman, he turns her down...

"She then asks him if he is interested in the 15 year old Rebel Pilot/Mom/Son which thankfully he says NO. My problem is with that even being included in a Star Wars novel. To suggest a man might be interested in a 15 year old girl or boy is what I have a problem with. Not necessary and just plain sick."

Now we've got the suggestion of boy love in Star Wars.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R32V8TKFJEZ8X9/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=034551162X

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 08, 2015 4:45 PM  

@148 I don't think it's fair to try to select ONE deserving blue-SF book just to keep the SJWs from burning down the awards again.  Don't we WANT them to burn down the awards to avoid giving a rocket ship to anything that isn't SJW-compliant?  Isn't forcing them to either acquiesce or shoot themselves the whole point of the Xanatos gambit?

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 08, 2015 5:06 PM  

@ Jim Milo
Oh I agree whole heartedly. They were the ones who publicly disclosed part of their ballot. The responsibility is on them for providing evidence to people who might try to identify how they voted. In the end I am still not sure where the harm is at if I know how Alexandra Erin or John Scalzi voted unless I know that they voted as part of a slate or they voted for works they later claimed weren't good enough for the Hugo. Even then, it's a problem of their own making and they are now trying to hide that fact.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 08, 2015 6:29 PM  

It's easy enough to also anonymize the nominated entries. Assign A, B, C, etc to all entries in a given category; the ones which actually had a shot generally can be determined by their overall numbers (Best Novel A = 387 = Skin Game; Best Novel B = 372 = Monster Hunter Nemesis, etc), as reported in the 2015 Nomination Statistics document.

The entries which finished with only one/few votes won't be determinable by this method, thus the anonymized ballot won't be so easy to equate to a person who reveals part of it ("I'll love you long time on Cheeto Stained Mattress" might be 'G' or it might be 'V', who knows?). But the patterns equating to slates will still be discernable; 50 ballots which all have A-B-C-G-V in a given category looks remarkably like a slate...or a 'suggestion'.

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 08, 2015 6:52 PM  

@ 154 If the goal was simply to eliminate slate voting that would be acceptable to all parties. I believe instead they are interested in testing to see if the EPH would have suppressed the puppy slate but still would have yielded their own approved works. I also suspect the creators of EPH are planning on playing with real data to determine the best way to game their own system.

Anonymous freddie_mac September 08, 2015 7:03 PM  

@151 Sage Kulbb -- more than likely, gay stormtrooper turned down the 15yo 'cause he'd already booked up with the 12yo (isn't age just a state of mind?).

Seriously, looks like Disney is doing a great job of policing the SW property, right? Way to get the parents to dump $$$ when they've got gay stormtrooper recruiting ... IIRC, Paramount and LucasFilms were fanatical about policing their properties ... anything that might be damaging got axed. Looks likes that's no longer the case ...

Blogger Danby September 08, 2015 7:25 PM  

you misunderstand, freddie_mac!
The inclusion of a gay stormtrooper is Good, not Bad. It can only help the image of the series. I mean, look how gay Dr. Who has become, and it's more popular than a good tv show.

Blogger automatthew September 08, 2015 8:59 PM  

I mean, look how gay Dr. Who has become, and it's more popular than a good tv show.

The gun is good. The penis is evil.

Anonymous Donn #0114 September 08, 2015 10:17 PM  

Floyd - The mouse has sharp fucking claws. My guess would be, 'no' with a side of 'hell no'. You do not fuck with the mouse. Their pockets aren't just deep they are bottomless.

Anonymous Donn #0114 September 08, 2015 10:24 PM  

VD predicts the SJWs would rather burn it down than vote for anything remotely outside their selections. He was proved right. Then when asked he predicted that there would be difficulties with the votes. Again, he was right.

There is no difficulty anomyizing results. There's only difficulties with hiding the scam they allowed or didn't notice happening.

Blogger Daniel September 09, 2015 1:47 AM  

"We were committed to transparency until we had something to hide," in other words. Of course, these are the same kind of people who protected children by ignoring their rapes, so...

Blogger Gary September 09, 2015 8:06 PM  

This is about the nominating votes, not the purchasing of memberships and I doubt that the data will show anything.
When I enquired many months ago, April 9th, about the possibility of seeing if supporting memberships were purchased in blocks from one checking account or credit card, I was looking at someone from Europe ;), I was told that their outsourced membership processing, "payment gateways", did not allow that information to be obtained by the Hugo Award administrators.
Cheers.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts