2015 Hugo Awards

2015 Hugo Award TrophyPresented at: Sasquan, Spokane, Washington, USA, August 22, 2015

Hosts: David Gerrold and Tananarive Due

Base design: Matthew Dockrey

Awards Administration: John Lorentz, Ruth Sachter, Linda Deneroff, Ron Oakes, Dave McCarty, and Glenn Glazer


The 2015 Hugo Awards were announced at a ceremony in Spokane, Washington on August 21, 2015, shown on UStream and through CoverItLive.

5,950 valid final ballots were cast by the members of Sasquan. Per the WSFS Constitution, each category must have at least 25% (1,488 ballots) participation; otherwise “No Award” must be presented in this category. This did not happen in any category. In the list below, we show the number of ballots cast in that category.

2,122 valid nominating ballots (2,119 electronic and 3 paper) were received and counted from the members of Loncon 3, Sasquan, and MidAmeriCon II the 2014, 2015, and 2016 World Science Fiction Conventions.

After the ceremony, the Award Administrators released detailed voting breakdowns in each category and a list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each. Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administration Subcommittee.

In some categories below, the members voted to give No Award in a category. This means no Hugo Award was presented in that category. In some categories, the members voted No Award ahead of some of the finalists. When this happened, we have listed No Award as if it was a finalist, with all finalists listed in the order in which they placed.

Best Novel (5653 final ballots, 1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)

  • The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
  • No Award
  • Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)
  • The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)

Note: The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008. The 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, and therefore it is again eligible for the Hugos, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.

Best Novella (5337 final ballots, 1083 nominating ballots, 201 entries, range 145-338)

  • No Award
  • “Flow”, Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, 11-2014)
  • Big Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them, John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy”, John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

Note: Both Big Boys Don’t Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication. Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.

Best Novelette (5104 final ballots, 1031 nominating ballots, 314 entries, (72-267)

  • “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, Thomas Olde Heuvelt, Lia Belt translator (Lightspeed, 04-2014)
  • No Award
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale”, Rajnar Vajra (Analog, 07/08-2014)
  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium”, Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, 05-2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House”, Michael F. Flynn (Analog, 06-2014)
  • “Championship B’tok”, Edward M. Lerner (Analog, 09-2014)

Best Short Story (5267 final ballots, 1174 nominating ballots, 728 entries, range 132-226)

  • No Award
  • “Totaled”, Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, 07-2014)
  • “A Single Samurai”, Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)
  • “Turncoat”, Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain”, Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (4901 final ballots, 1150 nominating ballots, 346 entries, range 206-273)

  • No Award
  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF”, Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled”, Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth, John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner, Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Wisdom from My Internet, Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (4412 final ballots, 785 nominating ballots, 325 entries, range 60-201)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal, written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3, written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics))
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery, written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick, written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • No Award
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate, Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (5240 final ballots, 1285 nominating ballots, 189 entries, range 204-769)

  • Guardians of the Galaxy, written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier, screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow, screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Interstellar, screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie, written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (4705 final ballots, 938 nominating ballots, 470 entries, range 71-170)

  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried”, ” written by Graeme Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)
  • Doctor Who: “Listen”, written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper”, written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • The Flash: “Pilot”, teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)

Best Editor, Short Form (4850 final ballots, 870 nominating ballots, 187 entries, range 162-279)

  • No Award
  • Mike Resnick
  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt
  • Vox Day
  • Edmund R. Schubert (Withdrew after ballot finalized)

Best Editor, Long Form (4907 final ballots, 712 nominating ballots, 124 entries, range 166-368)

  • No Award
  • Toni Weisskopf
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Anne Sowards
  • Jim Minz
  • Vox Day

Best Professional Artist (4354 final ballots, 753 nominating ballots, 300 entries, range 118-188)

  • Julie Dillon
  • No Award
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Alan Pollack
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (3880 final ballots, 660 nominating ballots, 100 entries, range 94-229)

  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons, Niall Harrison, editor-in-chief
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies, edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • No Award
  • Abyss & Apex, Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine, Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski

Best Fanzine (3818 final ballots, 576 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 68-208)

  • Journey Planet, edited by James Bacon, Christopher J Garcia, Colin Harris, Alissa McKersie, and Helen J. Montgomery
  • No Award
  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill (Withdrew after ballot finalized)
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale
  • Elitist Book Reviews, edited by Steven Diamond
  • The Revenge of Hump Day, edited by Tim Bolgeo

Best Fancast (3884 final ballots, 668 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 69-179)

  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • Tea and Jeopardy, Emma Newman and Peter Newman
  • No Award
  • The Sci Phi Show, Jason Rennie
  • Adventures in SciFi Publishing, Brent Bower (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio, Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)

Best Fan Writer (3884 final ballots, 777 nominating ballots, 265 entries, range 129-201)

  • Laura J. Mixon
  • No Award
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (3476 final ballots, 296 nominating ballots, 198 entries, range 23-48)

  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Ninni Aalto
  • Steve Stiles
  • Brad W. Foster

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (4338 final ballots, 851 nominating ballots, 220 entries, range 106-229)
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines. (Not a Hugo Award, but administered along with the Hugo Awards.)

  • Wesley Chu*
  • No Award
  • Kary English*
  • Eric S. Raymond
  • Jason Cordova
  • Rolf Nelson

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

For the full breakdown of voting and nomination see here (PDF).

Pre-Ceremony Panel and Part 1 (starting at approximately 1:16) of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony (The file descriptions at UStream are misleading)

Part 2 of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony

CoverItLive text-based coverage of the 2015 Hugo Awards Ceremony

UStream video coverage of the 2015 Hugo Awards Nomination Announcement

599 Responses to 2015 Hugo Awards

  1. Gremlin1974 says:

    Ok, just to clarify are you saying the idea is to add $5 to $10 to make it more expensive to vote, or reducing the price to $5 to $10? I think you mean the latter, but I want to make sure I am understanding you.

    • Paul Oldroyd says:

      This is in response to my post, yes Gremlin? (I have found that replying to threads through the “reply” button on the email always results in a new post rather than a comment on the post in the email. It’s frustrating.)

      Yes, you are right in your assumption. But it’s only one of a myriad of ideas. if you want to influence this you could join in the conversation.

      • Gremlin1974 says:

        Yes, I have noted the same thing about the e-mail responses.

        In response I didn’t want to comment or opine if I was mistaken. I actually like the idea of the $5 to $10 dollar voting membership, I fail to see how more inclusion and a broader range of opinion could be a bad thing.

  2. Farseer2 says:

    There is no need to restrict voting rights. However, now that it has been shown how efficient bloc-voting is under the current nomination system, it will be tried more and more (it was already being done before the Sad Puppies, only in a more informal manner). So in the next few years we can look to more informal slates, formal slates, counterslates, and calls for “no awards”.

    If Worldcon members want to solve the problem of relatively small but disciplined voting-blocs having a disproportionate representation in the nominees list and shutting out everyone else, they have to change the voting system of the nomination round, because this one rewards voting-blocs immensely. Fortunately, there are well-balanced systems that solve the problem, being fair to both individual voters and bloc voters. See here for a long discussion:
    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016199.html

    If you don’t want to read everything, look for the Reweighted Approval Voting system, or RAV. It would be excellent for the Hugos.

    • Richard says:

      I did read it. It is interesting. But what I most agree with is this part, at the very beginning:

      “I think the best choice would be to do nothing. It’s not at all obvious that this is anything other than a temporary aberration, and that any fixes won’t be subject to a different set of abuses and need to be fixed again. I think the worst situation would be a series of rule changes in a continuous effort to stave off different abuses. I don’t think highly of a bureaucracy that tinkers with election rules until it gets the results it wants.”

      The SP effort, after all, first came to be because Larry Correia become aware that people were openly campaigning against him because they disagreed with his politics. That is the original cause of this whole mess.

      The best approach, it seems to me, is a cease-fire. No more “slates”, but also no more campaigning based on identity politics rather than the quality of the work. Or even, dare I suggest, no more negative campaigning at all?

    • janmaus says:

      All it will take is encouraging more folks to participate in the nominations. It is my understanding that about 200 folks were enough for this to happen. I avoided nominating for years, believing that I hadn’t read enough eligible books in any particular calendar year to make my opinions valid, only coming out of lurkdom this year because I had read about 25 eligible titles, half a dozen or so that I really loved–and once having made that decision, reading another 35-40 short pieces between Christmas and March 10 in order to make a few nominations in the short fiction categories.

      • Kevin says:

        …believing that I hadn’t read enough eligible books in any particular calendar year to make my opinions valid…

        The only quantity that isn’t enough is zero. We address this matter in the Hugo Awards FAQ:

        If you have seen just one movie or read one story that you think is good enough to deserve a Hugo, you should nominate it. The Hugos work best when as many fans as possible use their own experience to nominate and vote for the things they think are wonderful.

        Members who disqualify themselves because “I don’t read/see/watch everything that came out last year, so I’m Not Worthy” are doing themselves and the Awards a disservice. Vote your preferences without worrying about what else is out there.

  3. Greyweather says:

    Great slate! Lots of new faces!

  4. Richard,

    your choice of where to place the blame on this whole mess does not jive with my own knowledge of reality.

    There may have been some personal exchanges between individual fans regarding who to vote or not vote for – but believe me, that goes on every year and I’m sure we could find partisans who would or would not vote for EVERYTHING that has been proposed for a ballot since 1953.

    Is Correia the only author on the face of the planet who has had people say not-nice things about his work or even him? No, and excuse me, but if you are producing in the arts, taking the bad with the good is, like, kind of a major part of the job description.

    So no. The reason that this whole thing started was because some fans discovered that fandom in general does not align with their views; they chose to drag mundane political issues into fandom; and they chose to try and buck the system by gaming it for both ideological and commercial reasons.

    • Richard says:

      This at least is correct:

      “The reason that this whole thing started was because some fans discovered that fandom in general does not align with their views; they chose to drag mundane political issues into fandom; and they chose to try and buck the system by gaming it for both ideological and commercial reasons.”

      The question is which fans those were. I believe LC when he says that SP #1 was a reaction to the whisper campaign against him 4 years ago.

      I also love the “fandom in general does not align.” My experience over the last 40+ years of being a fan is that “fandom”, as a whole, does not align with any particular views. SF/F fandom is incredibly diverse, politically. That is why the lack of political diversity in recent nominees and winners was so striking to many of us.

  5. Richard, you are entirely correct: fandom doesn’t align with any particular mundane views. But its Larry’s and others’ perception that it [does] that is the problem.

    [I hope that edit was what you actually meant, as the sentence didn’t seem to make any sense as originally written. -ed.]

  6. William Underhill says:

    Quite frankly, as a newfan (i.e., been an avid reader of SF & fantasy during my fifty-mumble years infesting the planet, but not a member of Worldcon), the first thing I noticed about the whole Puppygate thing was not the positions taken by the two (I think there’s two; might be more) sides… but the vitriol, hate and general uncivilizedness of a large number of the supporters of the various sides. Not just one side… all of them.

    My wife and I have attending memberships, but (speaking only for me, not Herself) I’m not inclined to vote for anyone, not after the performances and histrionics – to put it kindly – I’ve seen enacted on all sides of this. And to be perfectly honest, any friends of mine, if they were to ask me if a supporting membership was worth it, I’d have to advise them it’s not. Not with the drama llamas and martyrs out to demonize and villify any who date oppose their Chosen Ones.

    I would suggest that Worldcon consider very carefully the effect this whole thing has had on the newfen, the ones whose first impression of Worldcon and the Hugos has been this whole mess. I have been giving serious consideration to organizing anyone who agrees with my position – which is, simply, that while disagreement and debate are good, let’s keep it civilized – in order to boycott future Worldcons if this…. display of immaturity is what we can expect for future Hugos.

  7. William Underhill says:

    Gah… “the first thing I noticed”, not “the first think I noticed”. Dumb fingers.

    • Kevin says:

      I fixed it for you.

      Do bear in mind that attempting to get people to not vote in order to strengthen their own perceived ability to sway an election is a well-known electioneering tactic. It’s the “Both sides do it” or “plague upon both your houses” gambit.

      • William Underhill says:

        That’s very much how I feel about it. Both sides – or at least a very vocal portion of both sides – has pretty much put me off the Hugos. I’m certain I’m not the only one who feels this way.

        • Arlen says:

          And William, Kevin’s point is precisely that if you give in to this feeling, you’re Letting The Bad Guys Win — and I am deliberately refraining from pointing at any particular side when I say that phrase because the identification itself is immaterial. The point behind such “scorched earth” tactics is to win by making everyone else leave. A more rational response is to have more voices, not fewer, making the sample size more statistically significant, so the result can more reliably echo the views of the whole.

  8. Pingback: Musings of the Monster Librarian | The Hugo Awards and Collection Development

  9. Gremlin1974 says:

    Bravo, my friend, Bravo!

  10. Pingback: The Hugo Affair | POCGamer

  11. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Award Nominations | Readers Entertainment

  12. James says:

    Doing nothing to fix the problems with nominations and voting is great for business this year as people buy more and more memberships to try to influence the politics. In the long run it’s not so smart the Hugo is already no longer seen as an award for excellence but as a mark of corruption. A recipient should be embarrassed to recive one! Consumers are going to avoid buying things with it on the cover rather than try to figure out what political games lead to the award.

    • Michelle says:

      Yep. I’ve also made a note of the authors that cheated their way into the nominations, and it will be a cold day in hell before I ever buy anything they produce again. Can’t abide cheats.

      • John Syms says:

        This is my first comment on this thread. As some of you may recognise by my name, I have been involved in SF Fandom since 1977, and have helped RUN worldcons. I DETEST the characterization of the Sick Puppies as Cheats or that their noiminations ammounted to corruption. They saw a loophole in the rules and capitalized on it. This is no differerent than a Min/Max Gamer. There is only one rule for those who nominate and vote for the Hugo Awards that Should be ABSOLUTE.

        Nominate and vote for those Items that in their opinion DESERVE THE AWARD.

        Period.
        Fandom should be accepting, not exclusive. Hate should not be part of our fannish vocabulary. We are supposed to be the safe haven for the strange, odd, and misfits.

        • John Syms says:

          I am sorry, Sick Puppies is a costuming group, I meant Sad Puppies

        • AG says:

          Thank you for saying this. That is also what I think fandom should be about. Welcoming everyone who is a fan. There will be people with different ideas, but that should not mean we can’t enjoy our common interest together.

        • LeRoy says:

          You’re saying we shouldn’t blame Sick Puppies for finding a loophole to game the system. That would be fine if the Hugos were a game, but they aren’t. They’re supposed to be a reward to acknowledge the best Science Fiction of the year. What Sick Puppies has done is to hijack the system and invalidate this year’s awards.

  13. Pingback: On the Hugos and Positive Censorship | R. Jean Mathieu's Innerspace

  14. Pingback: Sad Puppies: The Battle For Truth. Part 1. | Futures Less Travelled

  15. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Award Nominations | Science Book a Day

  16. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Nominee: Flow by Arlan Andrews, Sr. - Attack of the Books!

  17. Pingback: Awards 2015: Hugo Awards - Best Science Fiction Blog

  18. I understand there have been two changes to the list due to elibility issues. Are the new nominating vote ranges going to be published here as well?

  19. Pingback: Book News: Little Libraries, George R.R. Martin Goes Retro For HBO, Top 11 Children’s Books & More! | Bookbanter

  20. Robert N Stephenson says:

    I see the comment about cheats used – this is not the case, you cannot cheat a system that has been designed to be open to influences beyond the quality or even popularity of a work. This is not cheating, it is just the use of a broken system to it fullest extremes of dysfunction.

    As I have said before, the last few Hugos showed clearly that things were not quite right, and this could be simply fashion or influence of a more political nature. You cannot avoid politics with a somewhat democratic voting system that does have lobby groups, or lobby functions, so avoiding politics is not really possible when faced with the process you have.

    All awards have troublesome years, just look at how the Oscars work and the issues that faces every year, and I think the Hugos, while at one time an important award in the industry, hasn’t fared as well as the Oscars because of its manipulative system.

    I know there are groups with stupid names all demanding to be heard, shouting and fist waving and simply being abusive to each other, whether rightly or wrongly. What is being said is not the real issue, who is saying what to whom is also not the issue. The problems is this is happening, and it is highlighting not only quite a large divide but horrendous weaknesses around the Hugos.

    If the voting process is retained in its current form the less than meaningful award now, will eventually just collapse and no one but die hard fans will care. For me, as an Australian writer, the arguments and disputes have made it quite clear the Hugo is really not an international award, it is a fully American award that some other nationalities happen to win, and usually by accident. The whole problem publicly played out through social media has slammed the door shut in the face of anyone who is not American. Though not an intended consequence, it has happened regardless simply by tone and action.

    If the Hugos deliver ‘No Awards’ as candidates and doesn’t award a Hugo, it basically proves the points some are making about how the system works. You really can block vote something, regardless of what it is.

    I know I am of no prominence, and my words have no more importance than any other person who may, or may not have commented on the fiasco, but until something is done about how the awards are delivered and voted on, this problem will only get worse – it is inevitable and if you look back over the years you can even see the problems when they first filtered through.

    Thank you for the opportunity to offer a view, and I am sorry if this view is a bit wayward, or misses any salient points. This write who once looked up to the Hugos no longer holds it in any place of serious noteworthiness, and to me, personally, I think that is sad.

    Robert N Stephenson
    Australia

  21. Pingback: Designer Spotlight: A Conversation with Ken Burnside about Squadron Strike! Traveller | Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog

  22. Pingback: Nocturnal Lives » Review — Goodnight Stars

  23. Carolyn Peterson says:

    The Hugo awards will become meaningless if they continue to allow the consetvative activists, the sad and rabbid puppies to stuff the ballot box. They use the same sort of conservative media argument that they are not getting a fair share of time, coverage or attention if anyone other than their approved authors are nominated. This is the whole basis of Fox “fair and balanced” conservative lockstep reporting.

    • Gremlin1974 says:

      Unlike the SJW activist that have controlled them for the past decade or more, LOL. There is actually a third option that you don’t seem to have realized could exist. How about….and I am just spit-balling here…..maybe I actually agree with the SP list and think they are books well worth nominating and have never given a tinkers darn about what the motivations behind the list happen to be? (Which is probably the attitudes of most of the folks that voted SP/RP.

      I realize it is difficult to see past your prejudices, but I beg you to please try.

    • AG says:

      Yes, it’s shocking. Only the right people should be allowed to vote. People with the appropriate beliefs. And only the right campaigns should be allowed. What hypocrisy. Go on, let’s harass the remaining authors some more. Let’s discuss how you are going to boo them at the ceremony. I’m sure you’ll be able to get rid of more of them before the convention.

  24. Pingback: Winter isn’t coming: Hugo Awards’ own GamerGate is delaying A Song of Ice and Fire -RocketNews

  25. Dot says:

    Gremlin, I like a few of the nominations but more are rather amateurish writing, not up to the quality I expect from the Hugos. I think perhaps they might have been nominated for who was writing it rather than the writing itself.

    I have a very, very hard time with the fact that you puppies knocked your hero Heinlein out of the running for a well deserved award because of sheer ignorance of it. John C. Wright (isn’t he one of your puppy nominees?) wrote that Heinlein couldn’t win an award today. http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2014/05/07/heinlein-hugos-and-hogwash/ He was right. And it is because of the puppies that idolize him.

  26. Pingback: As science fiction ascends, its popular award – the Hugo – threatens to nosedive – GeekWire | Great books outlet

  27. AG says:

    >I have a very, very hard time with the fact that you puppies
    >knocked your hero Heinlein out of the running for a well
    >deserved award because of sheer ignorance of it.

    Heinlein died years ago. He was not eligible for any award.

    Apart from that, all voters miss things, or do you read everything eligible? I would not have voted for the second part of that bibliography because I did not read it.

    • Dot says:

      He most certainly was, even though he is, as you say, dead. The biography of his life, by William Patterson could have been nominated for Best Related Work and it would have been a fine time to celebrate the man’s life and work.

      I would hope that anyone who admires Heinlein would read about his life.

  28. Dot says:

    After I hit the post button, I realized that “amateurish” isn’t the word I wanted to use and I retract it. I do think that, as I said, who wrote something was more important to the slate maker(s) than what was written and it shows.

    • Gremlin1974 says:

      I can only speak for myself, but I did not nominate anything that I had not read and I did not nominate in area’s that I do not read. (i.e. I don’t read graphic novels so I did not nominate in that area.)

      Also, the use of the “you puppies” smacks of the insular elitism that has been the complaint of “we puppies” from the beginning.

      As far as you not thinking that the writing of some of the authors is up to par, well that is your opinion, one with which I happen to disagee.

      • Dot says:

        The puppies call themselves that which is why I use the term. I have not made up names for them, unlike the puppies who make up names for anyone who stands against them. This conclusion is formed from reading puppies explanations about why they are acting the way they are.

        Notice you give an example good example of the above. I did not call myself “elitist,” you made up that name to call me because you don’t like what I said.

        You are welcome to think what you like about other people’s works. —-> I’m not calling you a name for having your own opinion.

        • Gremlin1974 says:

          “The puppies call themselves that which is why I use the term. I have not made up names for them, unlike the puppies who make up names for anyone who stands against them.”

          Actually no, it isn’t the same, because you use it in a negative fashion or as a term to refer to a “lesser” group or a group of outsiders. Much like the N word, which means something totally different when used between friends that are black than when used by a racist to refer to black people. I would prefer to have you refer to me and the others that voted for SP as fellow members since we have completed all the requirements of membership. However, once again, I doubt you will see past your own prejudices.

          “This conclusion is formed from reading puppies explanations about why they are acting the way they are.

          “Notice you give an example good example of the above. I did not call myself “elitist,” you made up that name to call me because you don’t like what I said.”

          Actually, I never called you an “elitist” I said that your use of the term “The Puppies”; “smacks of the insular elitism that has been the complaint of “we puppies” from the beginning.” If you are gonna make baseless accusations then please make sure they are at least somewhat accurate.

          “You are welcome to think what you like about other people’s works. —-> I’m not calling you a name for having your own opinion.”

          Nor did I call you a name. You are, however the one perfectly willing to tell what you obviously consider dirty outsiders to “go set up your own award”. Well it is actually our award, since I am a member just like you.

          Oh, and in point of fact, Mr. Heinlein would not have been eligible for an award, Mr. Patterson would have been. (BTW Mr. Patterson’s work was my nomination for the award.) But I guess being one of “the puppies’ my nominations don’t count.

          • Dot says:

            Frankly, I think you are “reading into” my words an insult because you want to be insulted. It gives you vindication (in your mind) that it is okay for you to be unpleasant to others. If you think it is an insult to be called a puppy, so be it.

            If I say that what you say smacks of stupidity, you aren’t dumb enough to think I’m not calling stupid, are you? Right. I don’t buy your explanation that you aren’t “really” calling me elitist. I think we are both smart enough to know you are phrasing it the way you do to get around the mods.

            As to your nitpicking that Robert Heinlein would not be receiving the award, why how could he since he is dead? But I think everyone would have been happy to celebrate a great writer (Heinlein) together. I regret a missed opportunity.

          • Dot says:

            I believe that you are replying to my remarks to Dave, are you not? Where I suggested that he go set up his own awards rather than game the Hugos?

            I don’t think that you are a dirty outsider. I prefer to believe that you [bathe] regularly, although I could be wrong. As for an outsider, if you feel yourself to be an outsider, therapy would help.

            Now that we have got that out of the way, this is what I think happened. I think a small group of writers got together and said, “We don’t get no love. We never win awards. It is not because of our writing because obviously we are great writers, much better than everyone else.”

            And someone else realized that many SF awards couldn’t be gamed… but one could, the Hugo. I think that group decided they would trash the party. And they did.

            I realize that I am angry because I buy fiction for a lot of libraries and SF and fantasy is my particular joy. I love the genre. I love pouring over the reviews and reading about the books online and then turning around and reading them myself when they come in for processing. The puppies have taken some of the fun away from buying books.

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            “If I say that what you say smacks of stupidity, you aren’t dumb enough to think I’m not calling stupid, are you? Right. I don’t buy your explanation that you aren’t “really” calling me elitist.”

            Actually Dot, you would be incorrect, I tend to be very careful with my words and would never just make a radical assumption about someone that I have very little information about. When I say something makes you sound elitist that is exactly what I mean. Have no fear that if I had wanted to call you and elitist I would have and would have no qualms about doing so.

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            Also there is no “nitpicking” it is simply the truth, Patterson would have received the award. Also, the fact that the book is about Mr. Heinlein is secondary, at least to me. Frankly I am not a biography reader, I really don’t care that much about his life, he wrote amazing sci-fi that I enjoyed. I don’t mean that to be insulting its just not my interest.

  29. The Hugos will only become meaningless if we continue to have people – any people – game the system.

    There is a point at which all rules systems fail. That is the point where participants agree to abide by both the letter and the intent of the rules. The intent of the Hugo Awards rules systems is to allow all of the members of Worldcon (not the whole wide world, not everyone who ever had a brief brush with SF) to vote their own personal tastes, in an unfettered, open environment, free from undue influence. With a [few] additional details added in to help determine the works that are eligible, the manner in which voting takes place & etc. The fact that “the whole wide world of people who are touched by SF” COULD be members of Worldcon seems to get glossed over most of the time.

    Rules systems employ penalties in games and sports with the avowed purpose of “redressing the imbalance” – eg – restoring a game to the conditions prior to an infraction (as much as they can be, while still allowing the event to continue).

    I view voting No Award for categories in which slate-based nominations are present/leaving slate-based nominees off the final ballot as the only currently available method of restoring the situation to the conditions that prevailed prior to the infraction. Although the analogy falls apart because the infraction was of the intent of the rules as opposed to the letter. The “penalty”, however, enjoys the benefit of being both within the letter and the spirit of the rules.

    I understand that some believe that circumstances prevailing before SP were themselves in violation of the rules, but that interpretation does not prevail because:

    the rules themselves have always and are still open to revision through a completely open democratic process (anyone can attend Worldcon; anyone can go to the business meeting; anyone can propose changes)

    voting for nominations and the finalists has always operated under the same system – claims of fixes, influence & etc. completely notwithstanding. No reliable, verifiable evidence has ever been put forth demonstrating that a small group of individuals have acted in concert to fill the entire ballot of categories with one set of pre-approved nominees.

    It is logically impossible to prove a negative. In claiming that there has been a prior conspiracy, it is both ethically and logically required that the claimants provide irrefutable proof of the assertion, rather than requiring those being accused to engage in logical impossibilities. Failing to approach the issue in this manner renders the argument moot. Anyone truly acting in good faith towards the Hugo awards would take the former approach.

    • Gremlin1974 says:

      Which might be a meaningful speech from someone who has not been so vocal about their over the top hatred and bigotry.

  30. Steve,

    “Plausible deniability” often lets politicians get away with all kinds of things where only circumstantial evidence–however strong–is apparent. On the other hand, it is not uncommon that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict a defendant. Happens all the time.

  31. Dave,

    What you are suggesting simply furthers the “prove a negative” argument.

    You and I have previously managed to have many fine conversations despite widely differing mundane political views. Even after you decided that you didn’t want your OTR picks featured on Amazing, – a decision that I discouraged you from but respected, we continued to trade the occasional email in what I continue to believe was an honest and respectful manner. You solicited my support for a petition, which I declined due to what I believe were good, non-politically based reasons and I believe that you accepted those reasons in good faith. And I have continued to publish notices and PR you’ve sent me from time to time since.
    I know that you appreciated the fact that we communicated, traded promotional favors & etc, despite issues you had with others over largely MUNDANE political issues, because you and I interacted with each other as FANS who had mutual fannish interests and goals.
    At the heart of EVERYTHING I have been writing about this Hugo business is both my experience with and belief in the fannish community’s ability to put aside mundane BS that mostly has nothing to do with fandom and concentrate on the business of continuing to build a culture and a society that is able to look past all of that crappy, hateful stuff. I’d like to think that our interactions and relationship over the past several years serves as an example of how that can be done. I believe that we respected each other, that we understood and tolerated the fact that on some issues we would not see eye to eye (not agree at all in some cases) and were able to put those things aside because we both did agree on at least one thing: that all this Buck Rogers stuff is far more important, and a hell of a lot more fun, than anything else going on.
    I try to remember that all the time. I like to believe that other fans are tolerant and big enough to understand that I and everyone else may forget it from time to time. And I’d like to believe that the majority of us feel the same way.

  32. Steve,

    All I said about you posting notices of Tangent Online’s weekly Old time Radio episodes was that i would no longer send them to you, but that you were welcome to snag them each week on your own. You have declined.

    All your words and pleadings sound oh so good and righteous to the uninitiated on the current controversy, but your take on this SP3 thing is so out of whack and back asswards it boggles the mind. You’re so blinded by your own deeply imbedded personal view of what fandom is that you fail to recognize that the Hugos–at least for the past X years, have been dominated by those with a particular view of what constitutes good SF. And they have dominated because it really hasn’t (until now) taken more than a few dozen votes to make it onto the Hugo ballot in certain categories. They had no *need* to do anything publicly or as an explicit group simply because these few or more dozen people already all *thought* the same things. There was no need for any formal organizing.

    So the Sad Puppies come along and do the same thing but in the open and with tremendous organizational abilities and the hoi poloi get their knickers in a twist. The only thing we agree on is that Vox Day is anathema to both of us. Whatever one thought of the Sad Puppies is now erroneously linked to Vos and his Rabid Puppies. I want no part of him and neither do the vast majority of folks involved in this. But a general overall, over-arching principle I stand with the Sad Puppies _intent_ if not every single particular of how things have worked out.

    But I do think the principle behind what Brad and the Sad Puppies are committing themselves to is a valid one. Larry Correia has nothing to do with Brad’s slate, and Vox is, to put it mildly, a black sheep in fandom’s flock.

    The race, sex, gender, poc issues…all that stuff is but a side issue brought up by the usual suspects who always seek to divide with class, sex, and gender divisions and politics. People are getting weary of this crap from the SJW crowd. They have cried wolf in this regard so often that only the most naive bystanders believe there is any truth to it. But it’s all they’ve got and is why they keep using it when anyone or any group dares speak up to them, in any fashion and for whatever reason. Anyone who uses the “diversity” argument in this situation doesn’t know what they’re talking about. None of the SP3 crowd is against diversity in who writes or is a character in SF. They’re just tired of a certain relatively small, tight-knit group of worldcon voters who by experience know that all it takes is maybe 40-50 of them to swing a nomination or win. Now they know that isn’t going to happen in the future and they don’t like it a bit.

    Like I say, the particulars have gotten messy beyond what anyone envisioned, and that’s a shame. But I really am getting tired of you coming across as all sweetness and light and beating your chest at how much you love fandom, and reciting some of its history over and over, when you’re just as biased as those who are now getting their ox gored. So save the hearts and flowers routine. You’ve cried that wolf too often now as well.

    • Dot says:

      Hello? The awards are given out by a group of [Worldcon] voters for the books they think are worthy. Make your own awards to give out to only your kind of writers, who cares? Don’t hijack the award system of [Worldcon], just because you can.

      I guess I’m just a librarian who is sad to see [Worldcon] get gored by some puppies who figured out a way to hack the system for the lutz.

      [Ed: It’s Worldcon, not WorldCom. The latter is something very different.]

      • Dot says:

        Thanks for changing it!

      • Viidad says:

        I know. It was a lot better when we had AWESOME sci-fi goodness like “If you Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and “Chicks Dig Time Lords,” wasn’t it?

        I am a lifelong sci-fi reader. The Hugo awards were becoming an embarrassment until the Puppy slates breathed some life back into the slates. I’m very happy to be a part of this year’s awards and to see some great fiction nominated again. $40 well spent.

        • Dot says:

          Did you read “Chicks Dig Time Lords” which were essays by women/fans who love Dr. Who and some of the actresses that were on it? It was considered pretty good, especially if you are a fan of the show and reviews for it are still available. Are you denigrating essays that are written by women for some reason? “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” was also written by a woman.

          I think that if you will read the comments here a little more deeply you will discover that it is the gaming of the Hugos (the puppy slates) that is the problem. I have no problem with you voting for your favorites, however voting for someone else’s slate isn’t that is it?

      • James says:

        Just for clarity’s sake, though, isn’t the Hugo supposed to be open to anyone who wants to be involved? Wasn’t the idea of the Worldcon voter supposed to represent the WORLD of Science Fiction and Fantasy? There should not be a push for a “separate-but-equal” award. There should be a push for more representation in the voting pool. There should have been a HUGE online push for the last few years to include more science fiction and fantasy fans. (Whoever is running the marketing and online social media for the Hugos should be fired.) The fact that there was not says volumes about just how non-inclusive the voting pool had become and just how happy they were with their tiny percentage of the fans. I am not a puppy, nor I some other group. I AM a science fiction and fantasy fan who has been reading voraciously for the last 40 years, and just recently found out how easy it is to vote for my favorite books. I now have a voice in what is decided upon for the best in science fiction and fantasy. All because one author decided to buck a broken system. I say, “Good job, Larry Corriea.”

        • Kevin says:

          James:

          When you call for those who are running the marketing of the Hugo Awards to be “fired,” I suggest that you have little idea of how things work. First of all, none of us are employees. Nobody involved in running the Worldcon, the administration of the Hugo Awards, or the marketing of those Awards is paid. All of us do this as volunteers, at our own (sometimes rather substantial) expense. Are you volunteering to spend several hours per week and a bunch of your own money doing this job? You’re welcome to apply to the WSFS Mark Protection Committee explaining why you should be put in charge of Marketing and giving your business plan. (So is anyone else, of course.)

          Secondly, in fact, since the formation of the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, the number of people participating in the Hugo Awards has skyrocketed in percentage terms. A substantially larger percentage of the members of WSFS are participating in the awards process, even before this year.

          Possibly you’re contending that the Hugo Awards should be voted upon by every person in the world who has consumed any sort of SF/F popular culture entertainment, but that’s not what the Hugo Awards are and never have been. They are, and always have been, awards presented by the World Science Fiction Society &emdash; the members of the World Science Fiction Convention &emdash; for the works that those people read/watched/saw and liked. Fundamentally, The Hugo Awards are intended to be awards presented by the people who join a community of Worldcon members, with a history traced back to 1939. The rules are made by that community, and that community can set its membership requirements and award regulations any way it wants to do so. Those people who object to this are not being blocked from setting up their own Awards run the way they think Awards Should Be Run. You don’t need permission from anyone to set up awards, you know, as long as you don’t use someone else’s intellectual property to do so.

          • James says:

            Kevin:

            Your condescension is neither appreciated nor necessary. I am a reasoning adult. I am well aware that the person who is doing a poor job of marketing the Hugo’s is a volunteer. I’m also aware that even volunteers should be replaced if the job they are doing isn’t up to snuff.

            Secondly, I would contend that the interest brought to the Hugos by the controversy of the last three years has had a larger impact on the number of participants than your Hugo Awards Marketing Committee. Especially if the system could be so easily swayed by a few hundred votes.

            “The Hugo Awards, presented annually since 1955, are science fiction’s most prestigious award.”
            Lastly and most importantly, it sounds like you are of the opinion that the award described as science fiction’s most prestigious award should NOT be voted on by as many consumers of science fiction as possible. Possibly you are contending that the Hugo Awards should be voted upon by people you approve of. I understand that one must be a member to nominate and vote. (Going back to that part where I explained that I am a reasoning adult.) I also understand that when I pay my dues, I become a member of your esteemed society with history which stretches back to 1939. My voice should be heard in deciding the “science fiction’s most prestigious award.”

          • Kevin says:

            What makes you think that there have been many people volunteering to do the task? Guess what: If WSFS “fired” the people doing the work with the Hugo Awards, then nobody would be doing the work. What you perceived as condescension is a reaction to the attitude that many people just discovering the Hugo Awards and Worldcon have that there is a Big Media Corporation paying Big Bucks to run things, like commercial media events. The idea that people would do this much work without getting paid is quite alien to many people.

            As I said earlier, if you’re prepared to do the work yourself, put together your proposal and submit it. Similarly, if you think you can run a Worldcon (and the administration of the Hugo Awards, which is part of it) better than those people who have been doing so, submit a bid to hold one and run it the way it should be done. This presumably seems sarcastic, but it’s not. How do you think so many of us who have been working on the convention for years got started?

            Yes, if you pay your membership dues, you have the right to vote on the society’s awards. Nobody has said otherwise. You have the same rights as every other member, but you don’t have more rights than any other member, either.

  33. Gremlin,

    I’d like to see evidence of my hate and bigotry. All of my protests have been directed at slate voting.

    But you’ll believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the reality, I’m sure

    • Gremlin1974 says:

      Yes, because asking Sad Puppies to repent and other such headlines speak of the well reasoned and neutral stance you take.

      Frankly, I refuse to give your perversion of Amazing Stories the clicks that it would take to prove my point.

  34. Gremlin. Not surprised you found an excuse. Not surprised at all.

    The arguments being advanced by those supporting the slates are, for the most part, so transparently ridiculous, future generations will wonder why the entire internet didn’t fall over from laughter.

    Then they’ll wonder – eternally – why the rest of us have spent so much time responding.

    ###

    Kind of a corallary to the do your own award argument; once at a paintball tournament, the rules were mailed out ahead of time and reviewed at a pregame meeting. “But we use these other rules” one team said.
    “Did you get them in advance?”
    “Yes”
    “Did you review them?”
    “Yes”
    “Then you’ve been properly informed and these are the rules we’re using”
    “We’re going to play by OUR rules anyway!”
    “Fine. The referees are using ours. Playing by your own set of rules is a fine way to lose a tournament.”
    And they did.
    And bitched incessentaly ever after. Somehow, it was our fault.

    • Gremlin1974 says:

      Actually, I like your corollary. Your are just to short sighted to see that it actually applies to you and not the SP. SP did receive the rules in advance, and played by them. SP never asked for a rules change, that is you and your ilk. Now you are on the side that is doing the “incessant bitching”. Oh and whether you realize it or not, you are loosing the tournament as well.

      On another note, your a paintballer, cool.

      • Dot says:

        Please restate your remark “Wow, now “who is looking to be insulted,” Gremlin. I do not understand it.

        • Gremlin1974 says:

          After you accused me of looking for a reason to be insulted you wrote.

          “Are you denigrating essays that are written by women for some reason? “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” was also written by a woman.”

          So, now who is looking for a reason to be insulted? Does that clear it up for you?

  35. Pingback: Ballot Changes: Updating the Hugo Math | Chaos Horizon

  36. Pingback: More Hugo changes - Best Science Fiction Blog

  37. Pingback: The 2015 Hugo Controversy FAQ for Librarians | The Nerdbrarian

  38. Pingback: Science Fiction’s White Boys’ Club Strikes Back – The New Republic | Great books outlet

  39. Dot says:

    Well, you know first off, I wasn’t talking to you. I asked Viidad straight up if it was because he did not like them winning because women wrote them. That might be the case if he was a Rabid Puppy rather than a Sad Puppy. Isn’t Vox Day a misogynist?

    But there were many ways he could have gone with it:

    – didn’t like works with silly names
    – didn’t like like fandom works
    – didn’t like Dr. Who

    I’ve seen them all before in the libraries. I buy books for people who have specific tastes of what they will and will not read. I have a small group of men, you know, at one library who will not read anything written by women, also exclude para-military stories. So there you go.

  40. Dot says:

    “Actually Dot, you would be incorrect, I tend to be very careful with my words and would never just make a radical assumption about someone that I have very little information about. When I say something makes you sound elitist that is exactly what I mean. Have no fear that if I had wanted to call you and elitist I would have and would have no qualms about doing so.”

    I’ll have remember to tell people that they sound like the south end of a north bound horse then not that they are the the south end of a north bound horse.

  41. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Nominee: Big Boys Don't Cry by Tom Kratman - Attack of the Books!

  42. Amazed says:

    Sad puppies? Sick puppies? I like the term Tea Puppies.

  43. Pingback: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121554/2015-hugo-awards-and-history-science-fiction-culture-wars | The Today Online

  44. Imp of the Perverse says:

    As someone new to the Hugo award voting I am truly amazed at the level and volume of innuendo, vitriol, misinformation and mis-attribution generated by the SP3 campaign this year.

    There are a lot of us new voters attracted by the hub-bub who discovered we are able to vote on the Hugo awards and are thrilled by the opportunity. We might have read a little on one side or the other but the gist was that we could vote. A lot of the comments I have seen are by folks who are really put off by the rancor and are ignoring most of the infighting, just looking forward to reading the works and voting on the ones we like the best, those that are worthy.

    I and some others are actively trying to recruit new members in hope that we can outvote the opposing sides BS “No Award” plans and give awards based on quality rather than politics or professional grudges.

  45. Pingback: 2015 Hugo Nominee: The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale by Rajnar Vajra - Attack of the Books!

  46. Imp,

    Voting No Award is not a rejection of authors, individual books or political views – it is a rejection of the manipulation of the awards this year.

    There are not “two sides” in this debate. There are reasonable people who want to preserve the tradition and integrity of the awards since 1953, and there are those who only want to tear things down in order to demonstrate how important they are.

    • James says:

      You are absolutely right… ummm who is trying to rewrite the awards process? Who tried to block all votes that were potentially “wrong”? Who is willing to allow ALL the awards this year to go to a guy named Noah Ward?
      By your very own logic, the SP’s “are reasonable people who want to preserve the tradition and integrity of the awards.”

      • Kevin says:

        James:

        Nobody officially involved with the administration of this year’s Hugo Awards “tried to block… votes.”

        There are indeed several proposals for modifying the Hugo Awards this year (as there are almost every year). Every member of WSFS can make such proposals. Any attending member of WSFS can debate and vote on those proposals. Any proposal that attracts majority support in two consecutive years becomes part of the WSFS Constitution. The rules are not secret. The system is not hidden. The members of Worldcon make the rules for themselves, legally and through democratic means.

        • James says:

          Kevin:
          I’m not stating that anyone officially involved with the administration of this year’s Hugo Awards has done anything improper. I am agreeing with your original point that there are reasonable people who want to preserve the tradition and integrity of the awards since 1953 and the opposing group wants to make a farce of this year’s award because they didn’t agree with the nominees presented.

          • Kevin says:

            If by “make a farce of this year’s Award,” you mean the calls for people to vote for No Award, you should be aware that No Award has been part of the Hugo Awards since the 1960s, and has won five times. No Award is always the appropriate choice if you personally believe that the works you ranked below NA (or didn’t rank at all) do not deserve to win the Award, for any reason whatsoever.

            The final ballot voting system (Instant Runoff Voting) returns results that represent a broad consensus of the voters. The preliminary nominating ballot, in contrast, is and always has been subject to enthusiastic minorities. This means that it has always been possible for such enthusiastic minorities to flood the ballot with works that a majority of the members dislike. The members have generally responded by ranking those works below No Award.

            In short, nothing new is happening here, as anyone who has been following the Awards for any length of time or who has studied the Awards’ history would know.

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            Kevin,

            I understand that you feel just as I do that people should rate the awards based on their view of the work in a literary sense, story, writing style, and I could go on and on. However, I do think that you are capable of seeing that there is a certain group that has been and will vote “No Award” simply because the works were on the SP slate. That is what I have a problem with.

            James,

            I think you are being far to hard on Kevin. Although he and I disagree on some fundamental idea, he has been probably the most neutral voice in the debate that has gone on here. Though we may disagree, I truly believe that Kevin’s main concern is making sure the Award maintains a certain level of integrity.

          • Kevin says:

            Gremlin:

            The members of WSFS have on many past occasions voted a work or works below “No Award” most likely because they felt the work was the result of a bloc-voting campaign. This is not a new development. There is no separate option on the ballot to differentiate between “Shouldn’t have been on the ballot in the first place” and “Disliked it so much that I don’t think it deserves an award at all.” Therefore, when the final-ballot voters (which is not the same group as those nominating) does not believe a given finalist deserved to be on the ballot at all, the only choice they have is to vote it below No Award (including ranking NA and not ranking such shouldn’t-be-there works at all).

            I stress that ranking works below No Award in the way I describe here is not a new innovation and has been done many times in the past. I can provide examples if you need to see them.

  47. Pingback: Geekly News As science fiction ascends, its popular award – the Hugo – threatens to nosedive - Geekly News

  48. Gremlin1974 says:

    No, voting “No Award” is the act of a petty petulant child who is basically saying that since the game didn’t go their way they are just taking their ball home. Though from what I have seen of those advocating voting “No Award” I am not surprised, since they are also pretty much organizing a bloc vote for “No Award”, to whit from this moment forward I shall refer to as the “No Puppies” crowd.

    • Kevin says:

      Voting “No Award” is the member saying, “I don’t think the works I voted below this or did not vote at all did not deserve to win the Award.” People vote NA every year. In 1977, a majority of them voted it ahead of everything else in Best Dramatic Presentation. Are you saying that the members of the 1977 Worldcon were “petulant children” because they disliked all of the nominees?

      Remember that the final ballot will reflect the will of a majority of the members who vote. The nominating ballot reflected the will of a plurality of the members who nominated, but not the majority. Indeed, a majority of the nominators voted for other things (and this is nearly always the case, not just this year).

      Are you saying that a majority of the members of WSFS should not be able to determine what they like or do not like?

      • Richard says:

        That would be legal, certainly. But against all tradition, blah, blah, blah…

      • Gremlin1974 says:

        And normally I would agree with you Kevin, I just don’t in this case. Especially, when there is basically now a bloc vote movement for “No Award” being lead by those whining about bloc voting, hence my new name the “No Puppies”.

        • Kevin says:

          I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with you. The attitude of “You must vote for one of the named works on the ballot,” effectively says that “15% of the members get to tell the other 85% what they are allowed to vote for.” Without No Award as a safety valve for the members to select when they consider every candidate in a category to be unworthy of the honor, it reduces the final ballot’s use to a near-meaningless level, and you might as well go back to a single-stage ballot voted first-past-the-post, which is how we got things like They’d Rather Be Right selected in the early days of the Award.

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            Please don’t misunderstand. If you are voting “No Award” because you feel that the works nominated truly aren’t “worthy”, then I am fine with that. However, if you vote “No Award” simply because the work was on a “slate” or was SP or as a “protest” against slate voting then I disagree.

            Frankly, from the posts I have read here and on other sights the majority of the “No Award” votes this year will be from the latter, without any honest consideration of the nominated work. These are the petulant children of which I speak.

            If you want to protest the slate voting then do it during the business meeting where it belongs, not during the awards voting.

          • Kevin says:

            I’m sorry, but I’m Chairman of this year’s Business Meeting, and I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about when you say that the only place to discuss this is the WSFS Business Meeting. If you have the mistaken impression that the WSFS Business Meeting has the ability to set aside the results of an election, you are wrong. The BM can change the rules for future elections, but the only way to affect the results of the current election is for the current members to vote in it.

            I’ve been besieged with requests that include the Business Meeting declaring this year’s entire election ballot void. I’ve never seen this in the nearly thirty years I’ve been attending Worldcon and the half-dozen times I’ve chaired the Meeting. I’ve had to tell the members, “No, the Business Meeting cannot cancel the Hugo Awards. No, the Worldcon committee cannot cancel the Hugo Awards.” And I’m now telling you: The 2015 WSFS Business Meeting cannot change the 2015 Hugo Awards. Discussing the specific results of the 2015 Hugo Awards on the floor of the 2015 Hugo Awards is not in order except insofar as it relates to debating a change in the rules affecting future Hugo Award elections.

            The decision as to whether an individual work isn’t worthy to be on the ballot is the individual decision of each member. Every single member who placed a work on their nominating ballot did so with the letter of the WSFS rules, I may be mistaken, but are you not one of the people who pointed that out? It’s true. Nothing illegal was done at the nominating ballot stage. And every single member who votes No Award in any position for any reason is being exactly within the WSFS rules. It’s all precisely within the letter of the rules. Every bit of it, nominating and final ballot.

            You see, there’s no direct mechanism for the members to look at each individual work and say, “I don’t think that work should have been on the ballot.” The only way a member can say that is by ranking it below No Award (including not ranking it at all and ranking No Award anywhere else). This is a deliberate safety mechanism built into the WSFS rules to give the majority of the members recourse should they be presented with a selection of works they find unpalatable for any reason.

            The nominating ballot almost always represents the opinion of a minority of the members who participate. It would be a violation of the principles of majority rule to allow a small minority of less than 20% to dictate the final results of the Hugo Awards, and therefore WSFS has a process in place that guarantees that the final results are always a reflection of the majority view of the voters. If that results is No Award, it means that the majority of the members of WSFS has rejected the minority opinion. That’s the rules, and that’s been the rules for more than forty years.

          • Richard says:

            By all means, vote “No Award” when you feel the quality of the work is not up to snuff.

            But that isn’t what you are talking about, and you know it.

            Please, let’s not be so disingenuous.

          • Kevin says:

            I’m not being disingenuous. If you think a work should not have been on the ballot for any reason whatsoever, you should vote it below No Award. Indeed, I’d suggest that there’s a more subtle way of approaching it: If you don’t like a work and would prefer it not win, but agree that it legitimately belonged on the shortlist, rank it, but rank it below No Award. If you don’t think it should even have been on the ballot for any reason, rank No Award and don’t rank that work at all.

            You don’t really seem to get it: there is no group, no Administrator, no central authority at all that is allowed under WSFS rules to disqualify a work for anything but technical reasons. But the members as a whole, acting through a democratic and open process that is designed to favor a decision of a majority (not a minority, no matter how loud that minority is), has the right to set aside the entire slate of nominations if they reject those nominations for any reason whatsoever. Each member gets to decide for him/herself whether a work legitimately belongs on the ballot.

            Works have finished below No Award before. In almost every case, the consensus has been that works that finish behind No Award shouldn’t have been on the ballot in the first place. That could be because the voters rejected he nominators’ tastes, but it could also be because they rejected the nominators’ motives. That latter reason almost certainly applies in some past cases, but you’d not be able to tell without asking the voters themselves, because voters, like nominators, do not have explain their votes to anyone.

            I’d like to suggest that as someone who has been involved in the crafting and administration of the WSFS rules since 1984, I might actually know what the rules say and why they say it. It is of course possible that people who have only recently come to the process understand it better than those people who have been here for more than thirty years and who actually wrote many of the rules in question and administered the Awards themselves three times, but it doesn’t seem that likely to me.

          • Richard says:

            As I am sure you know perfectly well, I have not suggested that anyone knows the rules better than you. Indeed, I believe everyone on this thread has acknowledged that voting ‘No Award’ would be legal, just as most people have acknowledged that the SP tactics are legal.

            I started my very first post by thanking you for your long service, and I meant it. But your post here only emphasizes the outsider/insider issue that is at the core of this dispute.

          • Kevin says:

            Richard: When I first attend a Worldcon, I had just turned 18 years old. (BTW, I first learned about Worldcon by attending it, not by being told, “Hey, go spend some money and you get to vote here.”) I found how much I loved it, and I wanted more of it. I also attended this “Business Meeting” thing that sounded interesting given my experience in school government. My contribution: I moved the adjournment of the first day’s meeting. Then for several years I was considered something of a crank by many of the people regularly participating in the process. But eleven years after attending my first Worldcon and the meeting thereat, I chaired the meeting. Seven years after that, I Co-Chaired the Worldcon itself. (That photo is in my user icon of me carrying a Hugo trophy at the 2002 Worldcon that I co-chaired.) So over a period of time, I went from “despised outsider” to “about as inside an insider as it’s possible to get.”

            My point is that it’s not unusual for people first coming to a social group to consider themselves put-upon as “outsiders.” But it’s a treatable condition. And the treatment doesn’t usually involve overturning everything that’s every come before you and demanding that everyone listen to you. Respect cannot be demanded; it must be earned. I learned that the hard way. Apparently it’s the only way anyone learns it.

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            No Kevin, I wasn’t thinking anything of the sort, it would be absolutely inappropriate for the results to be voided by the business meeting, especially when even you agree that no rules were actually broken.

            What I am saying is that the Business meeting seems like a more appropriate forum for discussion of how to “handle” this issues in the future, though I personally don’t see a problem with people promoting works that they see as “worthy”, that is up to the community as a whole.

            My point is that if you have a problem with the slate voting and believe that changes need to be made you should bring that up in the business meeting and not vote “No Award” only as a protest to slate voting.

          • Kevin says:

            Why any member votes the way he or she does it up to that individual and is none of your business nor of mine. It is utterly impossible to specify why a person should vote any way that person chooses to vote. It is none of my business how you voted. It is none of yours how I did. That’s how a secret ballot works, you know.

            No Award is an appropriate mechanism for the members to individually determine whether any given nominee deserves to be a Hugo Award finalist for any reason whatsoever. The member of WSFS are sovereign in this matter as individuals. Indeed, WSFS is quite ahead of its time in this area. Most governments that even have a “None of the Above” option don’t really mean it. I have personal experience of this in the last election cycle in Nevada, where the voters rejected all of the candidates, but under the rules, the second-place finisher got the not. Personally, I would have liked the election re-run with none of the candidates on the ballot allowed to stand for the post. When I say “None of the Above,” I mean it!

            Are you saying that you don’t think there should be a None of the Above option on the ballot? You are of course free to propose such an amendment. Did you intend to do so? do you need help drafting it and getting it onto the Agenda for this year’s Business Meeting?

          • Gremlin1974 says:

            I meant exactly what I said, it wasn’t ambiguous or confusing. If you choose to be purposefully obtuse that I can’t help.

          • James says:

            “Why any member votes the way he or she does it up to that individual and is none of your business nor of mine.”
            So if someone’s individual vote happens to closely follow a slate presented by a third party… that is none of your business? So why the anger at the slates?

  49. Pingback: 10 Ways to Get More Followers for Your Blog - SiteProNews

  50. Pingback: Authors should be active in their community | Quantified Opinions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.