Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You guys do realise that the books presented on the sadpuppies slate have BOTH conservative and liberal authors right? And that rabidpuppies, which is run by Vox, iirc, is actually a seperate spin-off or sister movement rather than the same. It's not like sad puppies is just nominating conservative authors, which is the impression I'm getting from this thread.

At the end of the day, the privilege for voting is 40 bucks. Go spend it if you want to make your voice heard instead of complaining on a forum about how certain rabble are coming to take over the Hugo awards.

 Haemonculus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Curious how you have come to the conclusion how those behind Sad Puppies are right wing idealogues.

Because they openly admit it? If you make even a token attempt to see what issues they advocate for it's pretty obvious that they're very definitely right-wing as a whole.

Where did you get this evidence from? It's at this point I'm going to ask for proof. Yes, there are some right wingers (but being R-Wing is not a crime [although I'm centre left!]), but a cursory glance of SP3 supporters shows a diverse crowd. I'm genuinely curious, Peregrine: where did you find the information that they're " very definitely right wing as a whole", because as whole they are damn diverse.

Obviously from the same place that people got the idea that gamergate is behind sad puppies.

The nomination list is not the same thing as the "vote for these to spite the SJWs" list. Not every anti-SJW book was nominated, and not every nominee was the result of anti-SJW lobbying.

Missed my point. The nominees do not reflect a right-wing lobby, nor an attempt to push a white agenda. The books that SP3 have supported are diverse. How the heck can that be evidence of right wing?

It's like you only think in the duality of left/right: "Oh, if you are against SJWs, you must be a right winger!". Things are more complex than that with SP3.

What Peregine is saying is that he believes the news when he agrees with it but not when he disagrees with it.

Also, something something about how Vox Day got a nomination so he must be supported by Sadpuppies somehow, despite the fact that other liberal authors got a nomination as well from SP. So somehow they're are also supported by SP.

I mean, it's like the concept of hey, this guy may be a political nutjob but he writes good fiction hasn't quite occured to some people.

 Haemonculus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read the OP in this thread? Let's look at the position of the person organized the SP 3 campaign:

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.
But now:

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

That's just the standard right-wing "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" agenda. Or perhaps you could look up the political positions of a guy named Larry Correia. You know, the guy who came up with the Sad Puppies concept in the first place.

(And just to be nice I'll assume that the SP3 campaign is honest about Vox Day not being part of it, despite getting a nomination out of the deal.)

So basically everyone in Sad Puppies is right wing because of this? Is this your evidence, Peregrine? Seriously?

Yes. It's all he needs.

You do realize that I posted a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign, right? That's not "just one article".

One organiser. If you don't even know how many organisers there are, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what's the truth.

 Haemonculus wrote:

Sining wrote:

Yes. It's all he needs.

So much for seeking collateral information before forming an opinion! To be honest, I've been a Hugo fan for years, and have an impressive collection of sci-fi; I've always known the Hugos to have diverse selections, such as Samuel DeLaney for example. So when I heard about SPs1, 2 & 3, I must admit that I was worried, but pretty much most sources discredit Telegraph, io9, etc!

It should be interesting because EW! has already had to 'correct' its article after being contacted by the authors they mentioned in their own article. Will see if this affects the others as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
What Peregine is saying is that he believes the news when he agrees with it but not when he disagrees with it.

No, I believe a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign.

Also, something something about how Vox Day got a nomination so he must be supported by Sadpuppies somehow, despite the fact that other liberal authors got a nomination as well from SP. So somehow they're are also supported by SP.

There's a difference between getting a nomination and being actively involved in the campaign, endorsing the SP3 concept, and creating your own subtle variant of the SP3 list to campaign for.

So you're saying SP3; which wants things to be less political inso much as they believe an authors political leanings shouldn't matter, should reject an author who supports that message because of his politcal leanings? LOLK


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's an article from the other organiser of SP3. Apparently what Peregine is saying, that VoxDay was on their slate isn't even true. OMG, Peregine telling an untruth? What next?

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

What Correia and friends are doing is nothing new. They're just more organised than the people who've been doing it for years. I guess the incumbent were complacent.

Also, have you seen their list of nominations for those who made it into the Hugos? It may surprise you but surprisingly, not all of them are 'white male' authors as you so put it -_-. And people wonder if there's an agenda that was already present in the Hugos


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
Again, you said that all SPs were right wing; and they are clearly all not.

I said no such thing. Please do not build straw men to attack.

Yes, just one friggen person. And so what, someone has a boogeyman right-wing world belief. Hardly evidence of a crime, and hardly evidence that the movement is right wing.

The guy organizing the SP3 campaign is not just some random person. And yes, it is evidence that the movement is right-wing because the organizer's explicit goal is to promote a right-wing (or at least anti-left) agenda.

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.
But now:

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

I'm not reading anything even anti-left in this. Me think you doth protest too much

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
What Correia and friends are doing is nothing new.

It absolutely is, because they're crossing the line from saying "I love this book and it deserves to win" into choosing a specific list of desired winners and then asking people to vote for them regardless of their personal preferences to maximize the anti-SJW voting power.

Really? How does them saying "I think these books are good and I think they're worthy of nomination" any different from what you said? Keep in mind they're not saying "these are anti-SJW books, vote them". That's what you're reading into what they're saying

Also, have you seen their list of nominations for those who made it into the Hugos? It may surprise you but surprisingly, not all of them are 'white male' authors as you so put it -_-. And people wonder if there's an agenda that was already present in the Hugos

I'm not reading anything even anti-left in this. Me think you doth protest too much

You might not be familiar with this because you're not from the US, but things like feminism/gay rights/etc are typically left-wing issues and opposition to them usually comes from right-wing sources.

Except they're not stating anything about opposing feminism or gay rights or so on in that paragraph you posted and keep touting as if it's the absolute truth. Here, let's go through the relevant quote again

Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

What you're reading from them is 'we hate gays and females and transgenders'. What I'm getting from it is 'We need more stuff that the average person can relate to'

So when someone else does it, they're organising a campaign. When other people do it, it's just recommending books? I mean, you do realise that they didn't say 'GUYS VOTE FOR THIS NOW' and you act as if they're acting with some unimind. They suggested, people looked at the nominations and voted for whichever ones they chose. You're pretty much just labelling everyone who followed sad puppies at this point.

So books that aren't approved by SJWs are anti-SJW books? I mean, the christians here don't approve of Archie comics. Is Archie an anti-christianity book then?

So you're comparing the guy's paragraph to an idealised rant. That doesn't even appear in his paragraph.

If people can't relate to half-robot space pirates, then maybe the half-robot space pirate shouldn't win the Hugos? I mean, this is a certain two-edged sword. Are the Hugos about what is the best literary work in terms of artistic merit or is it about what is the best novel in terms of most people like it (and considering Harry Potter won Hugo awards, I think it's the latter) then honestly, maybe the more relatable stuff should win the Hugos then. Considering it IS an open vote, I see nothing wrong with letting the masses decide.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
The average person? Seriously, that was actually used as an arguement?

So females and lgbt are not average now?

Must be damn hard reading about all those post humans in power armor. Why can't they be about more average guys right?

Yeah, I didn't mean it that way but if you're always looking for things to be perfectly offended by, then I guess you've succeeded. Also, note that I've never said anything about females. It's always the people that disagree with me bringing it up. It's almost...as if they're looking for things to be offended by

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Hiding of known rapists?

Should've put it better, he knew of stalkers and rapists and never reported them.

But I don't want to get this to far off track.

As it is though it just seems like another political issue, one side fights, the other side fights back, and now that the second side is fighting the first side wants the rules changed.

As far as I can tell from the article in the Daily Telegraph, a special lobby group has been set up to influence the voting this year. It didn't mention special lobby groups being active in earlier years.

Is that correct?

Sad Puppies has been around for 3 years. That's why this is called Sad Puppies 3

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Nah, bro you specifically implied women and lgbt. Not my fault you can't notice it.

One of the things I learned in the military is if somebody is ate up you need to correct them. Doesn't matter if you didn't mean it that way. You wrote it that way and now you know that you did and you shouldn't do it.

If you want to pull the "offended" card then I suggest you have thicker skin if you going to make those kinds of comments.

Then you need to go read better. I replied to Peregine about his stance that the paragraph contained anti-lgbt, feminism rhetoric. Surprisingly, on the subject of feminism, I brought up females since it is feminism. I'm not offended, because people are going to read whatever they want into the paragraph.Especially if they're just looking to be offended.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
So when someone else does it, they're organising a campaign. When other people do it, it's just recommending books?

Sigh. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that there's a difference between saying "I think this should win" and organizing a bunch of people to coordinate their ballots?

They suggested, people looked at the nominations and voted for whichever ones they chose.

Except they didn't just make suggestions, they got a bunch of people together with the intent to get a certain category of book nominated, decided as a group which designated nominees they were all going to vote for, and then voted for the approved list. Let's make this nice and clear:

How it should work: I like book A, you like book B, someone else likes book C. We are free to discuss our preferences, but we each vote for our respective favorites as individuals.

How SP3 is doing it: we all agree that SJWs suck and one of (A, B, C) should win. I like A, you like B, someone else likes C. We all meet up and decide that C has the best chance of winning, so we all vote for C even though you and I would prefer something else.

Lol, how are you even getting that? I mean, are you privy to the inner workings of Sad puppies? Because what I'm getting is 'guys, we have some books we think are cool. Some of them were nominated by you guys. Just take a look through them and feel free but here's why I think they're good" Source?
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/

So books that aren't approved by SJWs are anti-SJW books?

Exactly! The whole premise of the Sad Puppies campaign is that certain books are disliked by the "SJWs" for ideological reasons, and because they aren't approved they aren't allowed to win awards. Whether or not this is true (it isn't) that's what the SP3 organizers believe.

Disliked by doesn't necessarily mean anti. You're the one saying they're Anti-SJW books.

If people can't relate to half-robot space pirates, then maybe the half-robot space pirate shouldn't win the Hugos? I mean, this is a certain two-edged sword. Are the Hugos about what is the best literary work in terms of artistic merit or is it about what is the best novel in terms of most people like it (and considering Harry Potter won Hugo awards, I think it's the latter) then honestly, maybe the more relatable stuff should win the Hugos then. Considering it IS an open vote, I see nothing wrong with letting the masses decide.

You're missing the point completely. One of the primary goals of science fiction and fantasy is to explore things that don't exist in the real world. You know, all the cliches of the genre: spaceships, wizards, etc. If you take away all of the imaginative stuff you're left with a boring story about someone going to their 9-5 office job and maybe having an argument with their spouse as the highlight of the story. If you're reading science fiction and fantasy at all you're already demonstrating that you're capable of relating to characters that live in a completely different world from your own. And they're different in ways that make things like being gay look trivial in comparison.

Am a Star Wars fan. Actually liked Kevin J Anderson. Again, I mean, this is just how tastes differ. Also, would totally vote Kevin J Anderson for SW.

Also, the book that sold the most may not necessarily be the best book either. People who buy a book may not necessarily like the book enough to vote it.

At the end of the day, a character needs to be relatable to its audience. I see tons of people complain about this, about how they need female chars, need transgender chars in games to relate to scifantasy games. So why not the other way around? I mean, there is a reason why in those mouse books, where you have humanoid mice who talk and so on, that the book is written in english and the mice act in human ways.

Kind of like if Sad Puppies sweep the nominations this year, it's because that's what people like. I agree with that.

I think you guys honestly think the people who followed sad puppies aren't capable of making up their own minds. It's hilarious really. That's like believing a republican would only vote republican on all possible ballots just because they were told so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, Scalzi was doing this by himself for many years. I guess this means 2x the people means its 2x as effective.

Also, I expect all of you to go buy a 40usd membership to vote next year since this is apparently so important to you

You do realise there are different people as well right? I don't think most people even realised you could buy a 40usd membership and vote for the Hugos.

Yes. It's called voting next year -_-

At the end of the day, the votes are legit and the system works as it was written. Whether it works as it was intended is another issue but considering many of these issues were apparently highlighted to the committee and ignored, then I'd say the committee had their chance to fix them (2 years chance in fact).

Honestly, this is like people claiming 'haha, you'll never win enough votes to be elected' and then when someone goes out to campaign (and in a very OPEN manner to boot, with public declarations on the internet), and somehow wins, somehow it's suddenly wrong. GRR Martins fable about sourgrapes really should be applied to some people, but I don't think it's Sad Puppies in this case

This whole thing reminds me of Happy Gilmore. Where Gilmore attracts the wrong type of fans to golfing tournaments and some of the old crowd are less than pleased with him

Just fyi, Correia has an open blog that you can go and demand proof from him for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll even link it for you

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

I think it was more like lawyers got in touch with them. It happens when you slander people who can afford lawyers

No one is claiming the campaign had no effect. People are claiming however that the sad puppies aren't necessarily going to blindly follow whatever is on the slate without necessarily liking what is on the slate. But this may be too fine a distinction for you to understand

You're really generalising there. You're assuming that mostly everyone will vote for the two books just because they were different. Also, voting is secret (afaik), unless the guy is going to brag about it, he can vote whatever he wants and say anything about what he voted as number 1.

In the first place, no one is asking you to explain anything. If you find it such a chore, you can choose not to do it. Or you can drop your holier than thou attitude.

Secondly, you're again assuming that everyone isn't voting because they like the work and it's what they would have voted for anyway. I mean, if you have evidence, then please present it instead of constantly trying to imply it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
He refused nomination for a Hugo this year and publicly stated that he will never accept a Hugo.

He did, however, nominate his own book for best novel as part of Sad Puppies 2 last year, and only declined this year's nomination because he didn't want his critics using it against him.

Probably got more and more disillusioned as time went by

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
In the first place, no one is asking you to explain anything.

Apparently you are, because you keep posting things that demonstrate that you don't really understand how block voting works.

Secondly, you're again assuming that everyone isn't voting because they like the work and it's what they would have voted for anyway. I mean, if you have evidence, then please present it instead of constantly trying to imply it.

If everyone is voting for the works that they would have voted for anyway then what's the point of organizing people with similar views, selecting a single list to represent the Sad Puppies campaign, and promoting it as the single list of books to vote for?

The problem with your notion of block voting is that you kind of assume everyone is going to do this because it's what's on the block. You have basically reduced the humans who have voted down into this into statistics that you feel only voted that way because they were told to. I mean, in general, that just seems to espouse a pretty dim view of other people in general. And yes, I know how block voting works, I just don't think your notion is applicable in this context, which you guys seem to keep missing.

Secondly, the list is nominations of what they consider to be the best by the organisers. They do not say that everyone must vote for it. In fact, I suspect SP3 would fail horribly if they tried to be authoritative. Why do some of the nominations on the list end up being voted for? You guys are claiming it's because it's on the list so that's the only reason it's voted in. Meanwhile, you forget there may simply be other factors at play. There could be people who already like those authors and were going to vote them anyway, people who were never exposed to those authors but now are and like them and will vote them.

Are there people who will vote just because a list tells them to? Yes, but thankfully I believe they're really a very minor segment of humanity and I don't think that's the case here.

Also, I find it far more telling that certain people will not go and directly ask Larry and his sad puppies at a link that's been posted here several times what their intentions were and did they just mindlessly vote. Instead, they rather skulk here and post spurious claims about the other peoples intentions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
The problem with your notion of block voting is that you kind of assume everyone is going to do this because it's what's on the block.

No, I'm assuming that a significant number of people will do that. The SP3 organizers are also making the same assumption, otherwise they wouldn't bother with their current strategy.

I guess that's because at the end of the day, you're just looking down on other humans. There's a difference between 'guys, I love these books and I think you will too' and 'guys, vote these books because I tell you to'

 sebster wrote:

Sining wrote:
In the first place, no one is asking you to explain anything. If you find it such a chore, you can choose not to do it. Or you can drop your holier than thou attitude.

I'm trying to discuss the issue in a constructive way where we all come away with a better understanding of the issue. To achieve that, everyone involved needs to have a basic understanding of concepts like block voting. Fair enough if we were establishing that stuff on page 1, but it's now page 7, and it's clear that you've been making your arguments all this time without understanding how the process works.

You're pretty much trying to discuss the issue in a way that only you and perhaps Pere agree upon while ignoring everything else. Also, the counter-argument that 'no, your arguments are made up' is pretty petty isn't it. I've already said if you have proof that your view of block-voting is occuring, that people ARE voting only because it's on the list, you are welcome to show it. Instead, you rather come up with deflections and accusations.

Secondly, you're again assuming that everyone isn't voting because they like the work and it's what they would have voted for anyway. I mean, if you have evidence, then please present it instead of constantly trying to imply it.

The complaint from Sad/Rabid Puppies is that their preferred works were being neglected. This year they dominate the nominations. Is your argument that that domination would have happened anyway? Really?

Because if it would have happened anyway, then you should believe that the Puppies campaign has only sullied what should have been a triumphant year for their kind of authors, and so the campaign should be disbanded.

Either that, or you do the common sense, honest thing and accept that the campaign had a massive effect on the nominations, and then set about defending that effect as positive for whatever reason.

Larry has been nominated before. It's how he got to be there at the Hugos. Secondly, if they're a statistically a minority then there should be no problem because the process will correct itself. If they're not, then they're going to remain.

I mean, let's look at one of the nominations. Jim Butcher. Who's also been nominated for a Hugo before. So if he's on the slate and somehow ended up on the nominations as well, somehow this is because of the evil sadpuppies conspiracy and not because people think he's a good author.

What I'm getting here is that certain people don't like it that apparently people can campaign for fresh members to vote vs an insular in-crowd and actually manage to get nominations. Because remember, when Scalzi does it, it's recommendations. But when Larry does it, somehow he has the evil power to force everyone who's in sad puppies to follow his list to the letter.

The irony is lost on most of them sadly