Six Days Left

[grrm]

Less than a week remains to cast a vote for this year's Hugo Awards. Voting closes on July 31, but it would be wise not to wait until the last day. Sasquan has already warned that its servers may overload if there is too large a rush of last-minute ballots. Remember, you can vote NOW, even if you haven't finished reading, and return later to

Comments

Just out of curiosity

[ext_1274810]

Once the voting is closed would you be willing to disclose how you voted?

Re: Just out of curiosity

[grrm]

No, probably not.

I mean, I may drop a remark or two. Or not.

But there are too many categories, too many nominees, it would take too long to discuss which I like and which I didn't and why.

Re: Just out of curiosity

[autopope]

Note that a detailed breakdown of nominations and the final ballot is traditionally published AFTER the award ceremony.

The shortlists -- including the folks who were pushed down below the waterline by the slates -- will make for interesting reading.

Re: Just out of curiosity

[grrm]

The nomination lists always make for fascinating reading. They are usually released right after the ceremony, and are often posted at the Hugo Losers Party... ah, the Post-Hugo Nominees Reception... where writers gather around to pore over them.

This year will be especially interesting, of course, since they will reveal the names of those who were perhaps both damaged by the Puppies... the writers and editors and fans who would have been on the ballot in a normal year, but were squeezed off by the slates.

And yes, they are losers too, and deserving of recognition of such, and we intend to raise a toast to them all at my True Losers Party. I hope that many will attend.

[livejournal]

Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ.

[gman109]

Great suggestion regarding Laura, George. I hope it has a positive effect, as I'm in lock step with what you wrote about her - she's hands down the best writer in all the categories I've read. I also agree that she maintained grace and composure when speaking out against the rabbs.

Regarding that: The pups subverted, gamed, hijacked, and cheated the Hugos in order to make a political point. End of story IMO. I might have even agreed with at least parts of their original complaints, but I'm absolutely against the way they went about trying to affect change, and found their statements defending their actions ridiculous.

So, the most important question for next year must be, "how is this type of behavior going to be eliminated in future Hugo award years?"

Since I and most others consider you the Supreme Allied Commander on this issue George, do you have any feelings or suggestions on how to combat future stupidity on this matter?

[grrm]

Getting more people to take part in the nominating process is the main thing. I have been trying to do that for years

[gman109]

Thanks for that reply George

Liberlaism

[peerchen]

"It's funny you know, a lot of my circle consider anyone who describes themselves as "very liberal" to be in favor of more and more regulation in any given situation"
Well thats just means that "liberal" is just a tag and is not really saying much.

(This is one of the problems I see: The idea that your political leaning automaticly means you have to like these books, but will hate these other bookjs...)

[ext_2408272]

Actually, Sasquan never said that. Modern websites can handle much more traffic than any Worldcon is likely to see. Every member could vote on the last day and the servers could handle it with no problem. If all 10,000 members tried to vote during the last hour, we might possibly have an issue.

[smofbabe]

As you know, I have a problem voting for even one decent work in a puppy-dominated category because we are supposed to be trying to award the best work of the year in a given category. We can't do so if we know for sure that slate voting has prevented us from evaluating the quality works that in a fair nomination process might have been nominated.

[grrm]

Yes, in a perfect world, maybe one can make that case. But the Hugos have never been perfect. No more than any other award.

For me, there have been plenty of cases in the past where "the best work of the year in a given category" was not even on the ballot. What do you do then? What I do, is choose from the works that are on the ballot, so long as I feel they are Hugo worthy. And if only one is Hugo worthy, I vote that one first and No Award second.

I don't see the sense in punishing a worthy finalist because the competition is all crap. Regardless of where the crap came from.

If CASABLANCA was up for an Oscar against four Ed Wood films, I'd vote for CASABLANCA... even if I did think that CITIZEN KANE (not nominated) was slightly better.

[smofbabe]

For me, there have been plenty of cases in the past where "the best work of the year in a given category" was not even on the ballot. What do you do then?

In the past, I have generally chosen from the works that are on the ballot but that's because I was choosing from among works that represented what Worldcon nominators honestly thought were the best works of the year in that category, even if I might not agree with them on their evaluation of particular works. However, this year I'm not getting a choice among fairly nominated works, and given that there's no way to put an asterisk next to the winner's name, my choice in categories predominantly consisting of zombie slate nominations is to vote No Award, indicating that I don't feel that I have been given the opportunity to truly select the best of year in that category.

[grrm]

Does this mean you will be voting No Award in every category except Best Fan Artist? Because that's the only one without any Puppy nominees.