Comments | wombat_socho: I used be Sad, but I'm Rabid now.

wombat_socho

I used be Sad, but I'm Rabid now.

Aug 22, 2015 23:59

Well, that went about as well as it could have, if you were one of the Old Guard of Fandom, determined to destroy the Hugos in order to save them, or one of Vox Day's Dread Ilk, who've been waiting for an excuse to nuke the Hugos and sow the smoking ruins with (radioactive) salt ( Read more... )

sad puppies

Comments 6

meep August 23 2015, 10:22:05 UTC

im glad to see all the stats are online. also the vote counts for nom #s
http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf

wombat_socho August 23 2015, 20:35:23 UTC

It was bitterly amusing to see that on the Sasquan web page, they originally deleted all the categories where NO AWARD had been voted. On the official Hugo Awards web page, they're still missing.

huladav8usa August 23 2015, 16:28:06 UTC

How is "burning the fucker down" any different than "distroy[ing] the Hugos to save it"? (I'd say that this is 80% curiosity and 20% push back.)

wombat_socho August 23 2015, 20:33:48 UTC

Sasquan was the last chance for WSFS and the CHORFs to prove they meant what they said when they claimed the Hugos were still an award by the fans to the best SF/F of the year. Instead, they did everything they accused the Puppies of: stuffed the ballot box by buying memberships -allegedly for other people, but who really knows?- and voting a NO AWARD slate for every category where the nominees all came from the Sad Puppy/Rabid Puppy "slates".* They lied, bragged about lying, and did their little victory dance at having achieved something not done in the entire history of the Hugos - up to this point, there had been five No Award votes in the entire history of the awards, and now they've tied that total in ONE YEAR. Because the nominated authors and editors they snubbed weren't Of The Body ( ... )

selenite August 23 2015, 19:02:18 UTC

The CHORFs are willing to cut the baby in half. I don't have much motivation to help them with that. Better to let Worldcon resume its spiral down to nonexistence than throw another six figures a year at the concom to prop it up.

wombat_socho August 23 2015, 20:41:56 UTC

I can understand that point of view, but damn it...if there's a chance that we can take the Hugos back and make them mean what they used to mean, we ought to try. I'm going to give it another year or two before I throw in the towel on it.