On how and when the Guardian was informed about the 2014 Hugo shortlist

[nwhyte]

This is just to correct one of the many talking points floating around the Hugo nominations. There is a conspiracy theory that Loncon 3 informed the Guardian ahead of time that Larry Correia's Warbound had been nominated for the 2014 Hugo for Best Novel, and as part of the evil conspiracy between Worldcon and the liberal press, the Guardian then

Comments

[jemck]

Given this tedious mob's talent for spinning stories out of thin air, it's amazing they don't write better fiction...

[fjm]

No offence but you aren't the person who might have leaked.

Worldcons as we both know are the hosts of the award but the people with the information are the Hugo Committee, so the best you can say is that the Worldcon didn't leak it.

You are not in a position to say whether the Hugo Committee leaked although I think both of us would say we have very real trust in them.

[drplokta]

As a minor nit, the Hugo subcommittee each year (if there is one, which is customary but not required) is part of the Worldcon committee for that year. If the Hugo subcommittee leaks it, then that means the Worldcon did leak it. But not the Promotions division.

[nwhyte]

Look, Farah, this isn't helpful. THERE WAS NO LEAK. We know this because, if the Guardian already had the information, they would hardly have needed to ask me for it!!!

Mike is also correct in that the Hugo subcommittee are entirely within their rights to reach out to media sources on behalf of Worldcon. In this case, they didn't, and liaison with the Guardian was handled by me.

[errolwi]

I don't think it is helpful to ignore the very improbable fact that people might be lying to you. It isn't as if the conspiracy-lovers aren't going to think and say it themselves.
There is no way to absolutely prove that a leak didn't happen. Which is a completely different proposition from claiming that the known facts prove that one did.
It is also very telling that a mention in one paragraph makes it a 'hit piece', this from people that claim others are 'whiners'.

[fjm]

I'm sorry Nicholas bit it's your post that isn't helpful as I've tried to show. I think it was a mistake for you to write or post it. It's so hole-y that a child can see the flaw. All it does is stoke conspiracy.

All you had to say was "the timing is wrong to suggest a leak: here is the timeline"

[nwhyte]

No offence, but I think you have better things to do than comment further here.

[filkerdave]

My saying this won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but I hope it will reassure the uncertain.

Since they seem to be making a concerted effort towards paranoia, I'm pretty sure there is NOTHING that would satisfy them.

[a_d_medievalist]

I just wonder why people assume that all voting is done with intent. I am fairly sure that I am not the only person who didn't vote on particular awards because she thought it would be unfair to vote in a category where she hadn't managed to read at least a major part of each work. I am probably not the only person to have voted for one or two things in a category, and then "no award", because I didn't think the other things were Hugo-worthy. Seriously, what happened to "sometimes people have different ideas of what is good"?