Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Randroid 2.0
Posts: 643
Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 14:52
Location: Right. Here.

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Randroid 2.0 » 23 Aug 2015, 14:14

According to what I've read, the No Awards are a deliberate snub towards the Puppies slate, which seems rather childish to me.


Sent from my iBone, to beat Warren to the punch.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by thoreau » 23 Aug 2015, 14:55

"No award", is, IMHO, a perfectly fine thing to have on a ballot if an awards program wants to have a standard. Of course, there are food and bad reasons to vote for "no award", just as there are good and bad reasons to favor a nominee. Once an irreconcilable divide appears in a group, voting for "no award" will appear legit from one side of the divide, and petty from the other, but might actually be the right call in that it reflects the deep lack of agreement in the group.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12338
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Eric the .5b » 23 Aug 2015, 15:58

I was inclined against No Award, but honestly, the Puppy nominations were pretty bad. There was some amazing doublethink going on. Step 1: put together a politically acceptable* slate where the bulk is sheer crap and the highlights accomplish mediocrity. Step 2: claim you're championing merit against ideology.

No, no group that puts dreck like The Dark Between the Stars on a Best Novel ballot champions merit. Seriously, either Puppy group might actually cause problems among the sinister conspiracy of "everyone who isn't a Puppy" by putting together a slate of good works...if they could bear to pick good works.


* Aside from some token mediocre liberal works like "Totaled". And, you know, fan favorites like Guardians of the Galaxy that certainly weren't being excluded by any cabal before the Puppies showed up.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by thoreau » 23 Aug 2015, 19:18

Eric the .5b wrote:In a related vein, Thoreau, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on the E Pluribus Hugo proposal for reforming the voting process against slate-voting.
I'm looking at the text starting with item 3.8.8 on this page.

Methods like this, where your vote is divided in proportion to how many contenders you are supporting, are fairly common. They are used in some political systems and many private organizations. If your faction is small and it divides its few votes among too many candidates, then some are tossed and your small pool of votes gets divided among the smaller number remaining. In general, these systems do a decent job of selecting a finalist pool that reflects the voter pool.

There are certainly ways to game it (I know this because there's a theorem saying that), but this system hits a sweet spot of presenting fewer chances for gaming, while also being fairly simple. Sincere voting is not risk-free, but it is low-risk. Especially since the stakes are low: Maybe you'll get 2 of your favorites into the finalist pool when a smarter strategy could have gotten 3 in, but there's still a final election to go, and lots could happen there. So the risk of mistakes in the nomination process is fairly low.

Now, this system is still more complicated than I would recommend if I got to help design a political system from the ground up, but the Hugo electorate probably includes a lot of people who like the technical content in Neal Stephenson novels, so there's a different set of considerations than you'd have in a public election. And, for the Stephenson-inclined, this method only requires 2^n tallies instead of the n! tallies that you would need for an Australian Senate election.

All that said, the best solution here is more participation and dialogue. The seeds of discontent have been sown, and as long as there's a large number of voters whose agenda is irreconcilable with that of the other voters, and apparently correlates with cultural battle lines of the wider world, you're going to have something that looks a lot like Red/Blue ugliness rather than a spirited but fun process amongst enthusiasts doing it for the love of the genre. Rule fixes won't change that, though they can at least make sure that no one faction can completely dominate the nominating process.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Dangerman » 23 Aug 2015, 21:20

thoreau wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:In a related vein, Thoreau, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on the E Pluribus Hugo proposal for reforming the voting process against slate-voting.
I'm looking at the text starting with item 3.8.8 on this page.

Methods like this, where your vote is divided in proportion to how many contenders you are supporting, are fairly common. They are used in some political systems and many private organizations. If your faction is small and it divides its few votes among too many candidates, then some are tossed and your small pool of votes gets divided among the smaller number remaining. In general, these systems do a decent job of selecting a finalist pool that reflects the voter pool.

There are certainly ways to game it (I know this because there's a theorem saying that), but this system hits a sweet spot of presenting fewer chances for gaming, while also being fairly simple. Sincere voting is not risk-free, but it is low-risk. Especially since the stakes are low: Maybe you'll get 2 of your favorites into the finalist pool when a smarter strategy could have gotten 3 in, but there's still a final election to go, and lots could happen there. So the risk of mistakes in the nomination process is fairly low.

Now, this system is still more complicated than I would recommend if I got to help design a political system from the ground up, but the Hugo electorate probably includes a lot of people who like the technical content in Neal Stephenson novels, so there's a different set of considerations than you'd have in a public election. And, for the Stephenson-inclined, this method only requires 2^n tallies instead of the n! tallies that you would need for an Australian Senate election.

All that said, the best solution here is more participation and dialogue. The seeds of discontent have been sown, and as long as there's a large number of voters whose agenda is irreconcilable with that of the other voters, and apparently correlates with cultural battle lines of the wider world, you're going to have something that looks a lot like Red/Blue ugliness rather than a spirited but fun process amongst enthusiasts doing it for the love of the genre. Rule fixes won't change that, though they can at least make sure that no one faction can completely dominate the nominating process.
Doesn't all of this overlook that the idea is that you're voting for the best work/author, and not for elected office? It's literally a popularity contest, a straw poll, not representational democracy. Why should there be any nod toward coalitions etc? Why should Hugo voters care about other voters votes? You like a guy, you get your vote, you can vote for him or not. Then we tally how many people liked guy. Why is this hard? I think that the participants are cutting off their nose to try and correct perceived meta-face issues.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by thoreau » 23 Aug 2015, 23:20

Dangerman wrote:Doesn't all of this overlook that the idea is that you're voting for the best work/author, and not for elected office? It's literally a popularity contest, a straw poll, not representational democracy. Why should there be any nod toward coalitions etc? Why should Hugo voters care about other voters votes? You like a guy, you get your vote, you can vote for him or not. Then we tally how many people liked guy. Why is this hard? I think that the participants are cutting off their nose to try and correct perceived meta-face issues.
True, but there's more than one way to measure popularity, and the more you look at it the more you realize how Jadagulian arbitrary the popularity measures are.

You start the process saying "We want to give an award to the best SF novel." Great! But how do you know which one is best? Well, you can ask people. Great, except they disagree. Even if we take all of the politics of Sad Puppies and whatnot off the table, some people focus on the fact that Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem used narration to explore really cool concepts, and others focus on the fact that much of his dialog represents the worst of Asimov. So there will be differences of opinion and you'll have to count up the number of people with different opinions and then pick a winner. Sounds great, except there's more than one way to do that, and most of the methods out there all have a perfectly reasonable-sounding motivation or soundbite description.

One thing we could do is just dispense with the two stages of nominations and final votes, and let everybody put one name in. The work supported by the most people wins, period. I mean, we're just picking one? But then critics point out that there's value in narrowing it down first.

OK, how to narrow it down? Well, again, you could give everybody one vote. Or five. Or four. Or six. Or let them distribute points as they wish. There are sound arguments for each of these, arguments that have nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with trying to find the novels that the greatest number of fans think are solid. If, say, you have everybody vote for 5, and 30 people (out of 100) vote for the same 5, while the other 70 split their votes more-or-less evenly among 20 different works, then those 30 people could decide the nominees. Which is not necessarily a problem in any normative sense, but if they pick something that the other voters don't like then the voters will be choosing among (what they view as) pieces of crap and the process will not select something that the group broadly approves of. And, ultimately, a Hugo award is defined as an award for the book/story/etc. that the greatest number of Worldcon participants liked. If the nomination process gives candidates that they don't like then, by definition, it failed.

Sure, the stakes are low, but the stakes are still high enough that people want to participate. If people care enough to get together and choose something, they probably care enough to want a process that "reflects" the group. Now, the theory of elections says that there's no way to design a process that will perfectly reflect the group. But some processes reflect it better than others by some criteria. So it comes down to the group picking a process that usually works in accordance with criteria that they like. After all, they're picking something that they like, so they might as well pick it via a process that they like.

Also, there are five categories where "No winner" was more popular than the nominees. That indicates that the nomination process resulted in nominees that were unacceptable to most of the group. You could say that many members of the group were irrational, and you may very well be right (depending on how you define rationality). But from the perspective of designing a process, whether the group members are rational to vote as they do is a question that isn't really on the table. Implicit in deciding to hold this election with these voters is that their opinion matters. Otherwise the Hugo awards wouldn't exist. There'd be some other group giving out some other award.

And that's the post I write if I'm skipping over all of the mathematics and game theory behind it. Once you delve into the game theory of it, you realize just how Jadagulian-arbitrary election methods are. The process of voting for 5 and then using instant-runoff (the election method used in, among other places, Australia) is just as arbitrary as the method used to vote for Congressmen, which is just as arbitrary as the methods used to vote for at-large City Councils, and so forth.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Sandy » 24 Aug 2015, 05:57

Or "no award" indicates that there is an effective political organization influencing the awards, and since it was overpowered in the nomination process, it pursued a "burn down the village in order to save it" strategy.

As GRR Martin said, it proves the puppies right. And now the question is whether Sad or Rabid puppies find and exploit the inevitable loopholes in the rules, and the Hugos will become about voting rules because the true Scotsmen er, fans have to make sure their lizard gets in.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6752
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jadagul » 24 Aug 2015, 06:33

Sandy wrote:Or "no award" indicates that there is an effective political organization influencing the awards, and since it was overpowered in the nomination process, it pursued a "burn down the village in order to save it" strategy.

As GRR Martin said, it proves the puppies right. And now the question is whether Sad or Rabid puppies find and exploit the inevitable loopholes in the rules, and the Hugos will become about voting rules because the true Scotsmen er, fans have to make sure their lizard gets in.
Whether there's effective political organizing is, honestly, a bit beside Thoreau's point. The point is that the nomination process presented a slate of candidates who were not particularly acceptable to the collection of voters. The reasons for that, for the moment, are beside the point; the fact is, something in your process has failed if most of your voters dislike all of your nominees.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Sandy » 24 Aug 2015, 07:06

Except I think it was a plurality, not a majority, which is the puppies' point.

Related: Image
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 08:22

I knew that Correia started the Puppy movement, but until reading one of the news articles yesterday I didn't realize it was because he was mad that one of his own books got nominated but didn't win. So, apparently, he immediately jumped to the conclusion "If I didn't win this award to which I feel entitled, that must prove some politically based conspiracy." Dude raised sore-loserhood to an art form.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8979
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by nicole » 24 Aug 2015, 09:05

Jennifer wrote:
The Puppy insistence that "conspiracy" is the only reason attitudes or stories they dislike might prove popular strikes me as uncommonly similar to an attitude I've seen on openly white-supremacist sites, insisting that "brainwashing" is the only reason any full-fledged white person might disagree with them. Though on second thought, I shouldn't be surprised to discern such arrogance coming from a misogynist white supremacist who actually named himself "the Voice of God."
A lot of people believe in false consciousness.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 09:17

nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
The Puppy insistence that "conspiracy" is the only reason attitudes or stories they dislike might prove popular strikes me as uncommonly similar to an attitude I've seen on openly white-supremacist sites, insisting that "brainwashing" is the only reason any full-fledged white person might disagree with them. Though on second thought, I shouldn't be surprised to discern such arrogance coming from a misogynist white supremacist who actually named himself "the Voice of God."
A lot of people believe in false consciousness.
I suspect it's a coping mechanism for people who can't or won't come to terms with the fact "The world is changing, and if I don't change with it, I'll be left behind" -- far more flattering to believe "I am one of the rare souls strong enough to swim against the flow."

Though I personally find it even more eyeroll-worthy regarding science fiction of all things: a genre based on speculating about the future and how things might be different ... yet some butthurt middle-aged white guys want to dip that in amber and keep it unchanging forever. Torginson wants to read about testosterone gods rescuing beautiful women, so if other people want to read different kinds of stories, that must be some evil conspiracy. Correia wanted his adventure story to win and it didn't, so that has to be a conspiracy. The idea that people might genuinely prefer something different from what these guys want simply does not register on their mental radar.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15980
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by lunchstealer » 24 Aug 2015, 09:24

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
The Puppy insistence that "conspiracy" is the only reason attitudes or stories they dislike might prove popular strikes me as uncommonly similar to an attitude I've seen on openly white-supremacist sites, insisting that "brainwashing" is the only reason any full-fledged white person might disagree with them. Though on second thought, I shouldn't be surprised to discern such arrogance coming from a misogynist white supremacist who actually named himself "the Voice of God."
A lot of people believe in false consciousness.
I suspect it's a coping mechanism for people who can't or won't come to terms with the fact "The world is changing, and if I don't change with it, I'll be left behind" -- far more flattering to believe "I am one of the rare souls strong enough to swim against the flow."

Though I personally find it even more eyeroll-worthy regarding science fiction of all things: a genre based on speculating about the future and how things might be different ... yet some butthurt middle-aged white guys want to dip that in amber and keep it unchanging forever. Torginson wants to read about testosterone gods rescuing beautiful women, so if other people want to read different kinds of stories, that must be some evil conspiracy. Correia wanted his adventure story to win and it didn't, so that has to be a conspiracy. The idea that people might genuinely prefer something different from what these guys want simply does not register on their mental radar.
Honestly, it has nothing to do with coming to terms with the idea that the world is changing, and more to do with the fact that the thinker is so wrapped up in his or her own bullshit that they can't imagine a member of their ostensible group making a different choice than them. This is true of white supremacists who believe that all whites who like to live with blacks and other non-white races as equals must be something something brainwashed, but equally true of lefties who can't imagine working class people, women, gays, and people of color who vote with conservatives for any reason other than that they're brainwashed or bamboozled by some structural oppression.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 09:30

lunchstealer wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
The Puppy insistence that "conspiracy" is the only reason attitudes or stories they dislike might prove popular strikes me as uncommonly similar to an attitude I've seen on openly white-supremacist sites, insisting that "brainwashing" is the only reason any full-fledged white person might disagree with them. Though on second thought, I shouldn't be surprised to discern such arrogance coming from a misogynist white supremacist who actually named himself "the Voice of God."
A lot of people believe in false consciousness.
I suspect it's a coping mechanism for people who can't or won't come to terms with the fact "The world is changing, and if I don't change with it, I'll be left behind" -- far more flattering to believe "I am one of the rare souls strong enough to swim against the flow."

Though I personally find it even more eyeroll-worthy regarding science fiction of all things: a genre based on speculating about the future and how things might be different ... yet some butthurt middle-aged white guys want to dip that in amber and keep it unchanging forever. Torginson wants to read about testosterone gods rescuing beautiful women, so if other people want to read different kinds of stories, that must be some evil conspiracy. Correia wanted his adventure story to win and it didn't, so that has to be a conspiracy. The idea that people might genuinely prefer something different from what these guys want simply does not register on their mental radar.
Honestly, it has nothing to do with coming to terms with the idea that the world is changing, and more to do with the fact that the thinker is so wrapped up in his or her own bullshit that they can't imagine a member of their ostensible group making a different choice than them. This is true of white supremacists who believe that all whites who like to live with blacks and other non-white races as equals must be something something brainwashed, but equally true of lefties who can't imagine working class people, women, gays, and people of color who vote with conservatives for any reason other than that they're brainwashed or bamboozled by some structural oppression.
True enough. Although -- arguably -- it is more difficult for those (such as white supremacists, or the "formulaic scifi is the only scifi" types) who actually can remember (or think they can remember) a time when things genuinely were more to their liking. Such as Torgenson -- no, there never was a time when scifi was non-political, despite his claims, but there really was a time when scifi stories had lots of alpha-male protagonists rescuing damsels in distress. There really was a time, not too long ago, when white supremacy was the law of the land. These things are, luckily, fading away -- but people like the Puppies won't let them fade without a fight.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 24 Aug 2015, 09:39

This thread is so boring. Stop caring about the Hugos. No one else does.

I've heard the Tonys show is pretty entertaining. Talk about that, and post any good clips you find.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 09:43

Fin Fang Foom wrote:This thread is so boring. Stop caring about the Hugos. No one else does.
Exactly! Perfect example of the Puppies' mentality! "I feel thusly about the topic; ergo that's the only proper way to feel about it." :P
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15980
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by lunchstealer » 24 Aug 2015, 09:52

Fin Fang Foom wrote:This thread is so boring. Stop caring about the Hugos. No one else does.

I've heard the Tonys show is pretty entertaining. Talk about that, and post any good clips you find.
Who's Tony? Tony Danza?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13438
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Kolohe » 24 Aug 2015, 09:58

Fin Fang Foom wrote:This thread is so boring. Stop caring about the Hugos. No one else does.

I've heard the Tonys show is pretty entertaining. Talk about that, and post any good clips you find.
The last Tony clip I saw on TV got cut off.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 10:12

Tony Danza is an agent of the SJW conspiracy to promote women's "rights" at the expense of men. In the 1980s, you may recall, he starred in a TV show as a housekeeper. Whose employer was a woman.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by thoreau » 24 Aug 2015, 10:47

Sandy wrote:Except I think it was a plurality, not a majority, which is the puppies' point.
In the ranked voting method that they use to select among the final five* nominees, "No award" got a majority. Now, that majority is not the whole story, since the elimination process has a few quirks that a game theorist could point out, but it is in fact more robust than a mere plurality. And when the competition gets ideological and hence forced into a left-right spectrum (e.g. Puppies vs SJWs) rather than a comparison along several axes (e.g. 3BP has great narration but poor dialogue) that majority is, perversely, more meaningful because there are fewer chances for weird strategy. Weird strategy is most likely when the game is multidimensional.

This is not to defend the motives of the voters, just to note that the outcome of the second round almost certainly does reflect the preferences of this particular electorate.

*So say we all!
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24423
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Warren » 24 Aug 2015, 11:09

Wait. Which twin has the Tony?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Dangerman » 24 Aug 2015, 11:19

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
The Puppy insistence that "conspiracy" is the only reason attitudes or stories they dislike might prove popular strikes me as uncommonly similar to an attitude I've seen on openly white-supremacist sites, insisting that "brainwashing" is the only reason any full-fledged white person might disagree with them. Though on second thought, I shouldn't be surprised to discern such arrogance coming from a misogynist white supremacist who actually named himself "the Voice of God."
A lot of people believe in false consciousness.
The idea that people might genuinely prefer something different from what these guys want simply does not register on their mental radar.
Like maybe that people like babe-alicious babes in their Sci-Fi and video games? Because you said..

[quote="Jennifer" ...]there really was a time when scifi stories had lots of alpha-male protagonists rescuing damsels in distress. There really was a time, not too long ago, when white supremacy was the law of the land. These things are, luckily, fading away[/quote]

Why is it lucky that alpha-male protagonists rescuing damsels is fading away? It seems really silly to be continually mentioning white-supremacy and 'lads mags' sci-fi in the same breath as though they are comparable, although all bad things are like white-supremacy in Jennifer-land. There should be a law about comparing bad things to white-supremacists. Otherwise, everyone would just compare their opponents to Nazis all the time and that would be tiresome. If only...

Thoreau: "You start the process saying "We want to give an award to the best SF novel."

Well, there is no objective measure for 'best', so we are instead measuring the most popular. I can't get into the rest of your post because this is kind of a sticking point for me. Any voting structure except a blank "Which novel/short story/$LITERARY CATEGORY was the best?" is going to impose the will of it's designer on the result. So the fight will naturally become over control of the design, using whatever design elements are exposed to users.

The whole thing is obviously poisoned by political groups using the awards as proxies, but we all are ignoring that in the hopes that a better system will breed better people, or something.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 11:45

Why is it lucky that alpha-male protagonists rescuing damsels is fading away?
Good question. I should have clarified: I think it's good that alpha-dudes rescuing damsels is not the primary focus, because -- this is what Torgenson seems to have trouble grokking -- not all of fandom fantasizes about or relates to "Alpha Studman surrounded by beautiful ladies eager to impale themselves on his mighty schlong." Not that there's anything wrong with that subgenre, of course, but neither is there anything wrong with other subgenres, either -- despite Torgenson's complaint. (For that matter, there's nothing wrong with Correia or any other nominee thinking "Damn it, I really wanted to win and I'm really disappointed that I didn't." But immediately jumping to the conclusion "My loss is proof of a conspiracy which MUST BE STOPPED" is pretty fucked up.)

To paraphrase something one of the few Hugo winners said in her speech: "There's room in the fandom for everybody, but there's no compromise possible between people who say "We belong here, too" and those who say "No, you don't"." I've always preferred sociological scifi to technological scifi -- but, while I'm fine with saying "Techno scifi bores me," I wouldn't dream of insisting that anyone who likes techno scifi is somehow doing it wrong, and infringing upon my rights, and how DARE other fans vote for techno scifi when I don't like it.

If the Puppies are bored by sociological scifi -- specifically sociological scifi dealing with LGBT and other themes which only recently started getting acceptance in the larger, non-scifi society -- that's fine. But their insistence that the growing acceptance of such themes is a conspiracy against them which must be stopped -- no, it's not.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by thoreau » 24 Aug 2015, 11:52

Dangerman wrote:Any voting structure except a blank "Which novel/short story/$LITERARY CATEGORY was the best?" is going to impose the will of it's designer on the result. So the fight will naturally become over control of the design, using whatever design elements are exposed to users.
Except that voting for just one to select five is just as much a design choice (with consequences!) as voting for five to select five, or voting some other way to select five.

Popularity is something that can be measured many different ways, and the fact that the method used to measure it can determine the result makes the whole thing suspect. However, while it is true that you should regard an alternative measurement procedure as suspect, you should also regard the "default" measurement procedure as suspect! A preference for the status quo is still a preference.

(That may be the most Jadagulian thing that I've ever posted. Now all I need is for a group of asexual lesbian gymnasts to show up at my door and ask me to join them in an orgy.)
Dangerman wrote:The whole thing is obviously poisoned by political groups using the awards as proxies, but we all are ignoring that in the hopes that a better system will breed better people, or something.
Well, yes and no. All voting systems are vulnerable to strategic manipulation, but some are more vulnerable to more types of strategic manipulation. As it stands, the second stage of Hugo voting is fairly robust against strategic manipulation, but the first stage is actually rather poorly-designed if the goal is to minimize opportunities for strategy.

Why should anybody care about strategic manipulation in a voting process? Well, if they care enough about the matter at hand to want a result that shows roughly how popular something is (to the extent that that concept is meaningful). Ideally, the election results should have more to do with how many people read a science fiction novel and liked it than with how many people read a book on game theory and applied it to the election at hand. Every method has vulnerabilities, but some have more than others.

Now, you might argue that their notion of liking the novel has less to do with liking the novel itself and more to do with liking the politics of the author. Maybe. But from an election systems design perspective, why somebody prefers A to B is less important than ensuring that if a large majority prefer A to B then the system should rank A over B. (That isn't always possible, for reasons that have to do with the Condorcet paradox, but that's a topic for another day.)
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Hugos, Hugos, fight fight fight

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 24 Aug 2015, 11:55

Booorrrriinnnnggg.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests