On why George R.R. Martin is wrong: No Awarding the slate

[nwhyte]

When I saw the domination of this year's Hugo finalists by a slate of works nominated by a misogynist racist and his colluders, my immediate reaction was that I should vote "No Award" ahead of every one of their nominations, no questions asked or quarter given. (I was not alone.)

There has been some debate about this in the last week. Notably,

Comments

[hairyears]

The worst offence may well turn out to be bring in Gamergaters.

So far, the worst they've done is vote for a slate of nominations: it's not the worst thing they can do.

This isn't about ethics in games journalism; and neither was 'Gamergate'; it was and is about a hate campaign, and people who pursue it with passionate malice. They're here, and they were invited.

[nancylebov]

For what it's worth, the Gamergaters seem to have been invited in, but haven't shown up in any significant way-- possibly a few votes.

[nwhyte]

I disagree, Nancy. Look at the dozens of people who came out of nowhere to support Beale's slate. Genuinely dedicated fans of Beale and Wright? Or Gamergaters doing it for the lulz, and chortling over $40 well spent for a laugh? I know which I think is more likely.

[nancylebov]

It's hard to tell. I've assumed they were bad-tempered conservatives, but not gamergaters-- certainly there are plenty of both. I've haven't heard of any evidence either way.

[naomikritzer]

I spent way too much time yesterday reading blog posts from Larry Correia, John C. Wright, Sarah Hoyt, and Brad Torgersen, because their claim that "oh gosh, why do people hold us responsible for Vox Day when he had nothing to do with the Sad Puppy slate?" seemed so utterly disingenuous

[nwhyte]

They are caught in a bind of their own making. The fact is that Beale's slate was more successful than Torgerson's, and Torgerson's benefited from some spillover Beale votes. So now Torgerson and Correia are trying to claim credit for Beale's success while simultaneously realising that they should have distanced themselves some time back. Also their unedifying and unsuccessful attempts to call off their supporters' attacks on Tor are grimly amusing. You reap what you sow.

[daveon]

Yes I wonder if Wright is starting to feel nervous about the Tor stuff, given he's also signed with another publisher publicly trashing them and one of their people?

Couldn't happen to a nicer person and all that.

[cogitationitis]

It does seem that, by their own admissions, at least some of the SP followers did read the material. It's unclear if they read anything else, though. I think the long list of what missed the ballot will be most instructive; perhaps someone will do a not-a-Hugo for them.

[daveon]

You know I have yet to have a straight answer on that... It seems peculiar to have a slate of things you read and only nominate things on that slate?

[anonymous]

I think, even more important than the whether a Vox Day project can be tolerated, is the colder question of what incentives we want to create for future years

[nwhyte]

I largely agree with that. The fact is that the Torgerson/Correia talking point, that these slates have always existed, is completely untrue; but now it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On a related point, I've had a couple of people come back to me on Twitter saying that if we vote No Award we are letting Beale win. Personally I think that if we vote for the candidates he supported, we are helping him win, which is why I don't propose to do so.

[anonymous]

Beale (and Torg and Correia) will claim victory no matter what, I think. If a pick wins, they won! If it loses, they've 'proven' how evil the Hugos are by rejecting their obviously worthy work. Heinlein himself could return from the grave and tell them to buzz off and they'd claim persecution and victory in the same blog post. So there's no point fussing over whether they'll claim victory or not, and instead we just need to focus on what we want, not them. And I at least want a future without slates.