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.

Sining wrote:
How on earth is SJW even political? They're not a party. Are they left? Yes? Oh wait, there are left authors on the slate.

Do you really not understand how "political" can include more than just US-style right vs. left politics and formal political parties?

Also, I notice you know how to use the hypothetical one now instead of the hypothetical you now.

They mean the same thing.

Also, you do realise I said he has already posted proof on his own website which I linked right? I mean, the answer is there. You're welcome to go to the link and look for it. I mean, I'm not sure but I'm supposed to be the one who has a hard time understanding english here when I told you exactly where the proof was?

"Go look through all of the countless posts and comments on the subject by someone who has been extremely active in this debate so I don't have to spend 30 seconds to tell you exactly what proof I'm referring to".

Sounds like you're just trying to avoid answering tough questions. Either post the link or admit that you don't have anything.

Also, your argument is that there exists a list. People who were on this list got nominated. Therefore, this list is the sole reason why they were nominated. Not any of the explainations I gave before, but because their names were on this magical list of mind-compelling , they got nominated.

I guess you're just going to ignore the fact that there wasn't "just a list", there was a list and an attempt to coordinate a large group of votes for the people on that list?

And no, I don't think "they all got nominated on their own merits" is a very compelling argument when these are supposedly authors that were being completely ignored and shunned until SP3. The success rate of the SP3 list is way too high for that to be a plausible explanation.

But if other people of other political beliefs make a list of what books they enjoyed, that list is perfectly fine.

And you continue to ignore the concept of block voting and why it is effective. We've already explained this to you many times: there's a huge difference in voting patterns between a bunch of individuals saying "this is what I like" and a group coordinating their votes to ensure that a single designated winner (which is at least reasonably appealing to everyone in the group, even if it's not their top choice) gets 100% of the vote from the group.

Sining wrote:
How on earth is SJW even political? They're not a party. Are they left?

SJW aren't political on their own, politically, they are on the far,far left.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
How on earth is SJW even political? They're not a party. Are they left? Yes? Oh wait, there are left authors on the slate.

Do you really not understand how "political" can include more than just US-style right vs. left politics and formal political parties?

And how would you explain how the Hugos are political in this case then.

Also, you do realise I said he has already posted proof on his own website which I linked right? I mean, the answer is there. You're welcome to go to the link and look for it. I mean, I'm not sure but I'm supposed to be the one who has a hard time understanding english here when I told you exactly where the proof was?

"Go look through all of the countless posts and comments on the subject by someone who has been extremely active in this debate so I don't have to spend 30 seconds to tell you exactly what proof I'm referring to".

Sounds like you're just trying to avoid answering tough questions. Either post the link or admit that you don't have anything.

I'm not avoiding tough questions. You have tough questions about SP3 and its evidence, maybe you should consider ASKING the person in charge of SP3 since he is; in all honesty, the BEST person to ask about this. I've posted his link here multiple times. YET YOU REFUSE TO GO THERE.
http://www.monsterhunternation.com/
Honestly, you're like the person who keeps talking smack about how if someone was like this to you in real life you'd smack them down but when someone calls you on it, suddenly it's crickets or misdirection.

And no, I don't think "they all got nominated on their own merits" is a very compelling argument when these are supposedly authors that were being completely ignored and shunned until SP3. The success rate of the SP3 list is way too high for that to be a plausible explanation.

So let's look at the list again.

Recommendations for Best Novel
Kevin J. Anderson
Jim Butcher

Explain how those people were completely ignored/shunned? It's strange that they really haven't won a Hugo for their works, but if Harry Potter can get 2 Hugos, then I'm pretty sure that somehow Jim should have gotten one by now. If I was voting, I'd vote easily for Jim Butcher cause I like his books. But oh no, if I'm a Sad Puppy member, suddenly I'm only voting for Jim cause his name appeared on a list somewhere. Not because I've been reading his books since fool's moon and liked most of them. -_- That's totally not hypocritical of you guys to judge at all.

And you continue to ignore the concept of block voting and why it is effective. We've already explained this to you many times: there's a huge difference in voting patterns between a bunch of individuals saying "this is what I like" and a group coordinating their votes to ensure that a single designated winner (which is at least reasonably appealing to everyone in the group, even if it's not their top choice) gets 100% of the vote from the group.

You and I have very different opinions of what is block voting. Apparently you think people are morons or charlatans voting in a block and I don't.

I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

Which is exactly the opposite of the point the Sad Puppies are making; they claim they made their list/slate/whatever because popular works were being excluded in favour of high-fallutin' works (paraphrasing a bit here) with more literary aspirations than actual science fiction themes.

Can't have it both ways; either the more popular work (Potter) has rightly won one over the less popular, but qualitatively better work (Butcher) -at least partly disarming the Puppy list's raison d'etre- or the higher quality work should have gotten one over the bespectacled boy wizard - which is exactly the opposite of the Puppies' arguments, so what was their point again?

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Larry has personally made the effort to push the books he felt were worthy of nomination and get more people to buy them.

I’m not sure if you’re massively overstating the standing of Larry Correia in sci-fi and fantasy, or are assuming that no-one ever before encouraged people to read other people’s works. Either way, the insistence that Correia, or anyone else really, just saying ‘this is good you should read it and vote for it’ having a noticeable impact on sales and award recognition without anything else going on is comically stupid.

Seriously, if you want to be blind to the politics of this, be blind.

And why are you calling him Larry? Is he your brother, or close friend or something?

He used his blog to promote the works of other authors that he felt were worthy of nomination because he read them or because friends of his recommended them. His fans bought the books and did in large enough numbers to have a strong visible impact on the sale of those stories on Amazon.

Here are the links to the proof of that (which I've posted twice already):


http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/04/sad-puppies-book-bomb-best-related-work-and-campbell-award-for-best-new-writer/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/03/sad-puppies-short-story-update-free-championship-btok-and-tuesdays-with-molakesh-eligibility/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/26/book-bomb-results-more-free-stories-and-sad-puppies-slate-update/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/25/book-bomb-short-stories-from-the-sad-puppies-slate/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/19/book-bomb-success-behold-the-power-of-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/18/book-bomb-novellas-from-the-sad-puppies-slate/

If Larry thought that people would blindly vote for whatever stories he suggested why bother taking the time and effort to get people to buy the stories and read them before nominating them?

I refer to Larry as Larry because that's his name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
Temporary response? If SP4 actually manages to keep getting people nominated, I expect it to become less of a temporary response and more of a normal response because let's be honest, I can't see some of the people involved in this changing their opinions a year from now.

It's temporary because the suggestion to vote "no award" in response to SP3 only exists as long as there's "unfair" organized campaigning for votes. As soon as Sad Puppies (and anyone else who might be motivated to try their strategy with their own political beliefs) stop their voting tactics the people saying "vote 'no award'" will stop making that suggestion. Vox Day, on the other hand, is proposing an indefinite spite campaign to destroy the award as revenge for not letting him succeed with his plan.

The idea of fans voluntarily paying for memberships and voting for scifi/fantasy stories they like as being some sort of "unfair" advantage simply because you don't agree with their taste in literature is silly. Oh no! The wrong fans are voting for the wrong books! If WorldCon doesn't want fans to determine who wins Hugos they shouldn't let the awards be determined by fans in the first place.

If Vox Day can muster up enough fans to destroy the Hugos then the Hugos have fallen into such a state of disrepair that they deserve to go away.

This is what democracy looks like.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

It is not at all a straw man. The whole thrust and logic of the Sad Puppies' argument is that the kind of literature they want to champion is not getting nominated despite the fact that it is equally as good and/or popular as the stuff that was getting nominated. In other words, some kind of unfair, unseen forces have been operating.

I am astonished anyone would think Harry Potter would not be a massive title to go up against.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

It is not at all a straw man. The whole thrust and logic of the Sad Puppies' argument is that the kind of literature they want to champion is not getting nominated despite the fact that it is equally as good and/or popular as the stuff that was getting nominated. In other words, some kind of unfair, unseen forces have been operating.

I am astonished anyone would think Harry Potter would not be a massive title to go up against.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:29 pm said:

We have achieved a whole bunch of our goals. They’ve proven there is political bias, they have admitted there are cliques and campaigning, they have admitted that they don’t in fact represent all of fandom, and we’ve gotten good people on who would normally be shunned.

What’s next and what’s long term? That entirely depends on what they do now. The ball is in their court. Our strategy will depend on how they want to proceed from here.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm said:

I would encourage you to read the works. That’s all I can do.

And even if you find them wanting, that doesn’t mean that it was all some ploy, A. We didn’t know we’d sweep, so couldn’t predict the No Award temper tantrum. B. Apparently even if capital F Fandom doesn’t like them, the rest of the world likes our suggestions, For example, if you take the star ratings on Amazon, this is by far the highest average rating for the nominees ever, and the first time in decades every work is above 4 stars.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 4:07 pm said:

Well, you are in luck. Since Sad Puppies 3 has no political litmus test, and we put up authors based on two critera 1. Being awesome. 2. Normally being ignored, their personal politics didn’t really factor into it. So on Monday when we were being attacked in a dozen major media outlets for being white supremacists, we actually had to look harder, and it turns out that our slate includes people from every political philosophy, and if anything the average skews left.

Not that we give a [gak], because Awesome and Ignored were our criteria.

Now, any other normal time I would be glad to debate specific beliefs and points, but I just don’t got the time right now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

It is not at all a straw man. The whole thrust and logic of the Sad Puppies' argument is that the kind of literature they want to champion is not getting nominated despite the fact that it is equally as good and/or popular as the stuff that was getting nominated. In other words, some kind of unfair, unseen forces have been operating.

I am astonished anyone would think Harry Potter would not be a massive title to go up against.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:29 pm said:

We have achieved a whole bunch of our goals. They’ve proven there is political bias, they have admitted there are cliques and campaigning, they have admitted that they don’t in fact represent all of fandom, and we’ve gotten good people on who would normally be shunned.

What’s next and what’s long term? That entirely depends on what they do now. The ball is in their court. Our strategy will depend on how they want to proceed from here.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm said:

I would encourage you to read the works. That’s all I can do.

And even if you find them wanting, that doesn’t mean that it was all some ploy, A. We didn’t know we’d sweep, so couldn’t predict the No Award temper tantrum. B. Apparently even if capital F Fandom doesn’t like them, the rest of the world likes our suggestions, For example, if you take the star ratings on Amazon, this is by far the highest average rating for the nominees ever, and the first time in decades every work is above 4 stars.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 4:07 pm said:

Well, you are in luck. Since Sad Puppies 3 has no political litmus test, and we put up authors based on two critera 1. Being awesome. 2. Normally being ignored, their personal politics didn’t really factor into it. So on Monday when we were being attacked in a dozen major media outlets for being white supremacists, we actually had to look harder, and it turns out that our slate includes people from every political philosophy, and if anything the average skews left.

Not that we give a [gak], because Awesome and Ignored were our criteria.

Now, any other normal time I would be glad to debate specific beliefs and points, but I just don’t got the time right now.

I don't understand what you are trying to express.

Sining wrote:
And how would you explain how the Hugos are political in this case then.

The Hugos aren't. Sad Puppies is political, and trying to make the Hugos political.

I'm not avoiding tough questions. You have tough questions about SP3 and its evidence, maybe you should consider ASKING the person in charge of SP3 since he is; in all honesty, the BEST person to ask about this. I've posted his link here multiple times. YET YOU REFUSE TO GO THERE.
http://www.monsterhunternation.com/

Yes, I'm aware of Correia's blog and have read things there. You claimed that he has posted proof of left-wing vote rigging and/or block voting campaigns, so post a link to the specific post or comment where the proof is given. Stop saying "go ask this guy" when all you have to do is spend 30 seconds copy/pasting a link. You've already spent way more time complaining about how we should all go ask someone else than it would take to post a link directly to the supposed proof, if any proof exists.

Explain how those people were completely ignored/shunned?

Err, lol? The whole premise of Sad Puppies is that they're nominating authors that have been ignored and/or shunned because of politics. Think about what you're arguing here: that Jim Butcher is such a great author that he can be nominated entirely on his own merits without SP3 being guilty of block voting, but that he's simultaneously not such a great author that he can get a nomination by mass popularity overcoming the supposed bias in the process. And no, the "SP3 just got people to try something new and like it" argument doesn't work here because he's a popular author with a significant presence in mainstream bookstores.

Also, the effect is a lot more obvious in other categories. Do you really think that John C. Wright deserved three nominations for "best novella" for stories that couldn't get published outside of Vox Day's e-book store?

It's strange that they really haven't won a Hugo for their works, but if Harry Potter can get 2 Hugos, then I'm pretty sure that somehow Jim should have gotten one by now.

It's not strange at all when you remember that the window for winning a Hugo closes a year after the book is published. IIRC it took a while for him to get a lot of attention, and by that point his best work was no longer eligible and the Dresden Files series was starting to decline in quality. They were still entertaining and worth reading if you're already a fan of the series, but IMO they would have really benefited from an editor saying "cut out some of this sprawling mess". Skin Game was a welcome reversal of the trend and may have even been good enough to get a nomination without SP3's help, but that doesn't say anything about his lack of success in previous years.

And let's not forget that Jim Butcher is the easiest author to ask "why hasn't he won" about. You'd have a much harder time explaining how Kevin J. Anderson (an author that is absolutely hated by Star Wars and Dune fans) has been unfairly neglected and deserves to have won a "best novel" award or two.

If I was voting, I'd vote easily for Jim Butcher cause I like his books.

And now you're missing the point of the award entirely. You're not supposed to vote for an author because you like their books, you're supposed to vote for the best individual work. The fact that an author wrote some nice stuff in the past shouldn't in any way influence your decision in the current year. Each work has to stand on its own merits. If you think that Skin Game deserves "best novel" without considering the previous books in the series or how much you like the author in general then you, if you were voting this year, vote for it. Otherwise you vote for something else and it's just too bad that your favorite author isn't going to win an award this year.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

It is not at all a straw man. The whole thrust and logic of the Sad Puppies' argument is that the kind of literature they want to champion is not getting nominated despite the fact that it is equally as good and/or popular as the stuff that was getting nominated. In other words, some kind of unfair, unseen forces have been operating.

I am astonished anyone would think Harry Potter would not be a massive title to go up against.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:29 pm said:

We have achieved a whole bunch of our goals. They’ve proven there is political bias, they have admitted there are cliques and campaigning, they have admitted that they don’t in fact represent all of fandom, and we’ve gotten good people on who would normally be shunned.

What’s next and what’s long term? That entirely depends on what they do now. The ball is in their court. Our strategy will depend on how they want to proceed from here.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm said:

I would encourage you to read the works. That’s all I can do.

And even if you find them wanting, that doesn’t mean that it was all some ploy, A. We didn’t know we’d sweep, so couldn’t predict the No Award temper tantrum. B. Apparently even if capital F Fandom doesn’t like them, the rest of the world likes our suggestions, For example, if you take the star ratings on Amazon, this is by far the highest average rating for the nominees ever, and the first time in decades every work is above 4 stars.

correia45, on April 13, 2015 at 4:07 pm said:

Well, you are in luck. Since Sad Puppies 3 has no political litmus test, and we put up authors based on two critera 1. Being awesome. 2. Normally being ignored, their personal politics didn’t really factor into it. So on Monday when we were being attacked in a dozen major media outlets for being white supremacists, we actually had to look harder, and it turns out that our slate includes people from every political philosophy, and if anything the average skews left.

Not that we give a [gak], because Awesome and Ignored were our criteria.

Now, any other normal time I would be glad to debate specific beliefs and points, but I just don’t got the time right now.

I don't understand what you are trying to express.

My bad, I lost the text of my post while copy pasting. I copied over Larry's comments from his most recent blog post regarding the Hugo's so you could see in his own words his explanations of why stories were chosen and what the goals were. It seemed to be an easy way to clear up the straw man argument.

Sining wrote:
Thank god we have you here to enlighten us then

And there you go again, making smart alec comments to avoid learning anything.

1)Prescribed votes in what way?

There was a fething list - a puppies voting slate. How are you even asking that question?

1)Prescribed votes in what way?
2) SP is in its third year. For those who don't know, this means it started before Gamergate.

Yes, it started sooner but this is the first year when it's dominated the voting. And people believe its because it's been able to draw people across from gamergate.

3) Lol. Evidence? I think this is the CLEAREST indication of the type of mindset certain people have. "These SP3 voters aren't trufans! They're here to wreck this community" Seriously? I mean, please can you be any more exclusive?

Umm, there was a massive surge in first time voters. Whether this was mobilising an existing fan base or bringing in politically motivated people from outside fantasy writing is up for legitimate debate, but the fact that they parachuted in can't be debated.

So your evidence of no-infighting is that you didn't see anything happen? I mean, like I said, were you in the Hugos in the last 20 years? Do you know everything about the Hugos?

You're not following. My point isn't that there was or wasn't in-fighting, my point is that if you got a left wing conspiracy together there would be in-fighting, and that in-fighting would make this vast, multiple year conspiracy be revealed. And that's above the reality that any conspiracy operating over so many people, over so many years would leave masses of evidence and disgruntled people in its wake.

And yet there's not one fething scrap of evidence of this thing ever existing. The 9/11 truthers have more 'evidence', and those people are ridiculous crazies. So what does that make you and anyone who believes that there was this grand left wing Hugo conspiracy?

Are you seriously trying to tell people how to refer to other people online?

Nope, and if you actually read what was said instead actively re-interpreted things to make pointless digs you would know that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Harry Potter is not great literature, but it is extremely popular. A left-wing conspiracy is hardly needed to explain why Harry Potter might get nominated over something else less popular that might happen to be considered more socially conservative.

Bit of a strawman. No one believes Harry Potter was nominated/won over more conservative authors due to politics. I think Sining was just saying, if literary quality is any indicator, Jim likely should've had one, as Harry Potter, while popular and entertaining, isn't exactly high level prose., which you yourself admit.

It is not at all a straw man. The whole thrust and logic of the Sad Puppies' argument is that the kind of literature they want to champion is not getting nominated despite the fact that it is equally as good and/or popular as the stuff that was getting nominated. In other words, some kind of unfair, unseen forces have been operating.

I am astonished anyone would think Harry Potter would not be a massive title to go up against.

Gunslinger has the right of it in this case. Harry Potter is immensely popular but Harry potter also ended YEARS ago. Since then, Jim still hasn't won a HUGO for his books. What's with that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:

If I was voting, I'd vote easily for Jim Butcher cause I like his books.

And now you're missing the point of the award entirely. You're not supposed to vote for an author because you like their books, you're supposed to vote for the best individual work. The fact that an author wrote some nice stuff in the past shouldn't in any way influence your decision in the current year. Each work has to stand on its own merits. If you think that Skin Game deserves "best novel" without considering the previous books in the series or how much you like the author in general then you, if you were voting this year, vote for it. Otherwise you vote for something else and it's just too bad that your favorite author isn't going to win an award this year.

Dude, if I like his books it means I like all his books. Even the ones you claim are worse than normal. I'm not voting a crappy book just because I like a guy's previous works which isn't even what I said. I mean, stop coming out with hypotheticals that are totally unconnected with what I said


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Sining wrote:
Thank god we have you here to enlighten us then

And there you go again, making smart alec comments to avoid learning anything.

Why bother? You've obviously learnt everything already. That's what we have you here for. To lecture us and tell us how to address people online.

1)Prescribed votes in what way?

There was a fething list - a puppies voting slate. How are you even asking that question?

It's very simple. Prescribed votes in what way? I would have thought a person of your intellect and wisdom would have been able to figure that out.

1)Prescribed votes in what way?
2) SP is in its third year. For those who don't know, this means it started before Gamergate.

Yes, it started sooner but this is the first year when it's dominated the voting. And people believe its because it's been able to draw people across from gamergate.

That's great. Evidence?

So your evidence of no-infighting is that you didn't see anything happen? I mean, like I said, were you in the Hugos in the last 20 years? Do you know everything about the Hugos?

You're not following. My point isn't that there was or wasn't in-fighting, my point is that if you got a left wing conspiracy together there would be in-fighting, and that in-fighting would make this vast, multiple year conspiracy be revealed. And that's above the reality that any conspiracy operating over so many people, over so many years would leave masses of evidence and disgruntled people in its wake.

And yet there's not one fething scrap of evidence of this thing ever existing. The 9/11 truthers have more 'evidence', and those people are ridiculous crazies. So what does that make you and anyone who believes that there was this grand left wing Hugo conspiracy?

So no evidence? Ok.

Are you seriously trying to tell people how to refer to other people online?

Nope, and if you actually read what was said instead actively re-interpreted things to make pointless digs you would know that.

You mean you trying to imply Prestor knew Larry in RL which was why he was defending them wasn't true? That you weren't trying to be a schmuck to him just cause he called Larry Correia Larry?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, if any of you wants 40 bucks, Arthur Chu is willing to pay you guys to vote No Award.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So one side is clearly wrong, so they deserve to be slandered, insulted, and voted against in every manner of possibility by another political faction even those that Sad puppies has placed into its voting?

No, they don’t deserve to be abused or slandered. Of course they don’t.

You seem to have ignored my statement and simply spoke of "proposals", but they are very clearly running them through the mud with a variety of vicious libel.

So yes, "Just as bad" if not worse, It's quite obvious which side you are cheering for (With your own hypocritical statement to boot), as I dislike both groups for what they've done but you cannot even look beyond what they are doing now as they act.

I didn’t ignore your statement, instead I put your claim in the proper context of what the left wing response has been to this point – proposals. To this point the left wing has done nothing, and so just picking out the nastiest responses is just trying to drag them down to the level of the puppies before they’ve actually done anything in response.

No. Random individuals have posted nasty things about the puppies, some of them have even suggested organised responses that are just as bad as what the puppies did. But so far there has been no organised, coherent effort.

And stop saying hypocritical. That word a fething meaning, and I haven’t met it in the slightest. Nor do I have a side.

My position is actually very fething simple, and has been made clear through this thread.
1) Awards for art shouldn’t be gamed or manipulated with strategies like block voting.
2) You shouldn’t judge art by the politics of the author, and you certainly shouldn’t drag politics in to an awards ceremony.
3) Any individual or group that’s done either or both of the above deserves criticism.

So this means that people who harangued authors like Correia and said they weren’t voting for him despite have no knowledge of his work deserve criticism, and groups like the puppies who organised campaigns to game the voting system deserve equal criticism. And that’s exactly who I’ve said have behaved badly.

The mistake you’re making is that it’s good enough to judge the whole of the left wing by picking out some random left wing shouty people on the internet. But until there is any kind of organised response, the only ones who can be criticised are those specific left wing shouty people who’ve said mean things.

Sining wrote:
Gunslinger has the right of it in this case. Harry Potter is immensely popular but Harry potter also ended YEARS ago. Since then, Jim still hasn't won a HUGO for his books. What's with that?

He hasn't won a Hugo for his books because his books in the past few years haven't been all that good (at least compared to the earlier books in the series) and you don't get credit for past work. Skin Game was a welcome change in that trend, but now we'll never know if it would have won the award on its own merits without being used as a pawn in a political argument.

Dude, if I like his books it means I like all his books. Even the ones you claim are worse than normal. I'm not voting a crappy book just because I like a guy's previous works which isn't even what I said. I mean, stop coming out with hypotheticals that are totally unconnected with what I said

Let's look at your own words:

If I was voting, I'd vote easily for Jim Butcher cause I like his books.

BookS. Plural. If you're voting (in the hypothetical scenario where you vote*) for Skin Game because you like more than one book then you're doing it wrong. Whether or not you like Jim Butcher's books in general is irrelevant. All that matters is if you think Skin Game is the best novel of the year.

*See, now I've made it explicit that this is a hypothetical scenario and you can't claim be confused about it.

So no evidence? Ok.

Yes, there's no evidence of there being no evidence for this vast left-wing conspiracy to control the Hugo awards. Do you have any constructive arguments to offer or are you just going to say "evidence" in response to everything, no matter how absurd the demand for evidence is?

 Sigvatr wrote:
SJW aren't political on their own, politically, they are on the far,far left.

Yep. And the groups that rally motivated to resist them are, of themselves, political.

Whether or not you agree with either the SJWs or the anti-SJWs (both groups annoy me), it's bewildering to see people claiming it isn't political.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
Why bother? You've obviously learnt everything already. That's what we have you here for. To lecture us and tell us how to address people online.

No, I’ve learned lots of things on-line from lots of clever people, and continue to do so when I meet people who know more about something that I do. That’s how you get to be smarter today than you were the day before.

Whereas you, from the two threads I’ve seen you in, just bicker and contradict with whatever first comes in to your head. That’s a method for learning nothing, ever.

It's very simple. Prescribed votes in what way? I would have thought a person of your intellect and wisdom would have been able to figure that out.

And I explained it to you – the puppies set out an actual slate for people to vote for. As was explained in the very first moments of this whole debacle. And then I’m left asking again how that’s even a question?

That's great. Evidence?

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016194.html#016194

So no evidence? Ok.

You’re now asking me to provide evidence that in-fighting doesn’t exist in a conspiracy that I don’t think exists. While at the same time not even pretending to offer up evidence of this conspiracy in any form.

You’re like a parody of the internet.

You mean you trying to imply Prestor knew Larry in RL which was why he was defending them wasn't true? That you weren't trying to be a schmuck to him just cause he called Larry Correia Larry?

No, what? How did you get that out of the exchange? Incredible.

 sebster wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's very simple. Prescribed votes in what way? I would have thought a person of your intellect and wisdom would have been able to figure that out.

And I explained it to you – the puppies set out an actual slate for people to vote for. As was explained in the very first moments of this whole debacle. And then I’m left asking again how that’s even a question?

Just to help lay it, Naomi Kritzer made a helpful blogpost quoting and linking the specific blog posts from the SP organisers.

From Correia’s own blog in February:

Here is our suggested slate! Brad Torgersen is this year’s banner carrier in our ongoing war against Puppy Related Sadness. Now that the registrations for memberships to nominate for the Hugo are closed, here is what the Evil League of Evil authors came up with in discussion. Here is the list, and I’ll talk about the philosophy/strategy below.
[list omitted to save space]
Now let’s talk STRATEGIC Puppies.
These are my suggested nominations. I am under no delusions that you guys do exactly what I suggest. (seriously, it is like herding cats!). But I would encourage you to take a look at these, and consider nominating all of them.

Pretty much the dictionary definition of prescribed.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
Gunslinger has the right of it in this case. Harry Potter is immensely popular but Harry potter also ended YEARS ago. Since then, Jim still hasn't won a HUGO for his books. What's with that?

He hasn't won a Hugo for his books because his books in the past few years haven't been all that good (at least compared to the earlier books in the series) and you don't get credit for past work. Skin Game was a welcome change in that trend, but now we'll never know if it would have won the award on its own merits without being used as a pawn in a political argument.

Dude, if I like his books it means I like all his books. Even the ones you claim are worse than normal. I'm not voting a crappy book just because I like a guy's previous works which isn't even what I said. I mean, stop coming out with hypotheticals that are totally unconnected with what I said

Let's look at your own words:

If I was voting, I'd vote easily for Jim Butcher cause I like his books.

BookS. Plural. If you're voting (in the hypothetical scenario where you vote*) for Skin Game because you like more than one book then you're doing it wrong. Whether or not you like Jim Butcher's books in general is irrelevant. All that matters is if you think Skin Game is the best novel of the year.

*See, now I've made it explicit that this is a hypothetical scenario and you can't claim be confused about it.

So no evidence? Ok.

Yes, there's no evidence of there being no evidence for this vast left-wing conspiracy to control the Hugo awards. Do you have any constructive arguments to offer or are you just going to say "evidence" in response to everything, no matter how absurd the demand for evidence is?

Books plural is perfectly acceptable for Hugo voting for Best Novel. The entire Wheel of Time series was legally nominated for Best Novel in 2014. It was on my ballot both as a nominees and finalist. The claim that you can't take previous works in a series into consideration for Best Novel nominees is demonstrably false.

Every time I've voted for Hugos all I've done is pay $40, submit my ballot, receive my voter packet, read through what I hadn't read already, and vote for finalists. At no time did I receive and instruction from WorldCon informing me as to exactly what criteria I had to use to determine what stories I voted for. The "best" story in any given category is always going to be subjective. It's a popularity contest determined by fan voting. You buy your ballot and vote for whomever you choose. No rules were broken in the Hugos this year, all that happened is that more fans participated and voted for stories they enjoyed. I don't see why people are upset that fans paid their money and cast their votes. Not everybody is going to have the same opinions about which stories are great, that's certainly not something to get all outraged about.

Sad Puppies nominated talented writers published by Tor who sell lots of books and get great fan reviews yet there are editors from Tor the publishing house and numerous people on Tor.com who want to protest and vote no award to try keep Tor authors from winning simply because they were nominated by wrongfans having wrongfun enjoying those stories and those wrongfans shouldn't be allowed to crash the sanctified elite clique of SMOF/trufan WorldCon.

 Sigvatr wrote:
politically, they are on the far,far left.

They aren't really. They just have a strong opinion on social justice and shrilly complain about anything that they deem to have offended them, real or imagined. I agree with them in principle, although in practice I often find them tiresomely one dimensional and humourless.

What does this have to do with gamersgate? Gamersgate was all about the lack of journalistic integrity within the games industry; at least before all the shrieking manchildren on both sides turned it all to gak. I also dont understand why Gamersgate is associated with the political right.

The Sad/Rabid Puppy agenda has been spread, in part, through networks established by GamerGate.

GamerGate is associated with the "right" because its opposition is associated with the "left" (and vice versa). These are purely relative/non-substantive terms.

 Manchu wrote:
The Sad/Rabid Puppy agenda has been spread, in part, through networks established by GamerGate.

GamerGate is associated with the "right" because its opposition is associated with the "left" (and vice versa). These are purely relative/non-substantive terms.

Except that can't really be considering that this SP movement was started in 2013, a year before GG even formed, and was around last year's Hugo's as well.

As it is it seems like the gamergate monicker was only thrown around due to one minor person asking, people got involved and somehow think this is another gamergate thing despite well, SP came around for a fair bit of time before then, though it's quite noticible that GG was dragged into it by the same people who tend to attack GG to begin with because if it hadn't been the smearing of both with the same label most of GG hadn't even noticed it existed.

I do agree it is not so much of a far left vs. center left thing. I do think another thing going on in gamergate that is also somewhat at play here is that some people think that politics shouldn't come up in the discussion of whether something is good or not. People seem to be disagreeing in this thread about whether or not there was any bias prior to SP3, but there is no doubt that was going in video game reviews. I say this because I have seen people interview people on the pro-GG side who don't want game reviews to talk about the politics of the game. So GG seems to want game reviews to be a-political and SP3 also is claiming that it wants to prompt authors regardless of those authors politics.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The Sad/Rabid Puppy agenda has been spread, in part, through networks established by GamerGate.

Except that can't really be considering that this SP movement was started in 2013, a year before GG even formed, and was around last year's Hugo's as well.

That SP began in 2013 is irrelevant to the fact that it is being spread in 2015 by and to GG sympathizers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
some people think that politics shouldn't come up in the discussion of whether something is good or not

And some people don't like rainy days. But it keeps on raining nonetheless. Politics is an inherent part of our culture. It cannot not come up. Of course there was some degree of political bias (one suspects lots of different streams of political bias) running through the voting membership of WorldCon prior to SP mobilizing existing and new voters. The trouble is with folks who try to frame the argument as, either something is (a) non-political or (b) a conspiracy.

 Manchu wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The Sad/Rabid Puppy agenda has been spread, in part, through networks established by GamerGate.

Except that can't really be considering that this SP movement was started in 2013, a year before GG even formed, and was around last year's Hugo's as well.

That SP began in 2013 is irrelevant to the fact that it is being spread in 2015 by and to GG sympathizers.

Which ironically only came about once again because they decided to associate SP with GG because of one single guy when most didn't know about it till suddenly they were being once again attacked in the news by a new source and started looking into what was going on.

So yeah you do have GG on their side in some ways as a result of that, doesn't help that some of the same people attacking GG are doing the same in the other branch.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
they decided to associate SP with GG

Who is "they" in this clause?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
suddenly they were being once again attacked in the news

And who is "they" in this clause?

The simple fact is, there is a good amount of overlap from the top down and from the bottom up between Sad/Rabid Puppy organizers and sympathizers and GG. It's not hard to understand why. Both movements posit that "nerdy" media is being hijacked by "leftist" politics.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
I say this because I have seen people interview people on the pro-GG side who don't want game reviews to talk about the politics of the game. So GG seems to want game reviews to be a-political and SP3 also is claiming that it wants to prompt authors regardless of those authors politics.

I'm not interested in GG, but according to the more reasonable opponents, SP3's slate was at least a-political, as in it contained works from bpth ends of the spectrum which the SP organisers felt were being wrongfully excluded.

I still disagree with the why, the what and the how of what they did, but they do seem to have put their money where their mouth is with regards to whom.

So even if there were people being excluded from being nominated for a Hugo, their political bent seems to not be the deciding factor. I suspect that if, and it's a pretty big if, it's true, it's more due to the Worldcon attendees and organisers being a relatively small group with similar tastes rather than any kind of SJW-ism or other politics being involved.

 Manchu wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
they decided to associate SP with GG

Who is "they" in this clause?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
suddenly they were being once again attacked in the news

And who is "they" in this clause?

The simple fact is, there is a good amount of overlap from the top down and from the bottom up between Sad/Rabid Puppy organizers and sympathizers and GG. It's not hard to understand why. Both movements posit that "nerdy" media is being hijacked by "leftist" politics.

They being several media outlets who decided during the story outlet to paint the Sad Puppies as being a gamergate organizational offshoot rather then it's own group that has been around for longer.

I agree that certain "news sources" outed themselves as mere propaganda organs in "covering" SP.

That said, they didn't make up the GG connection.

 Manchu wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
some people think that politics shouldn't come up in the discussion of whether something is good or not

And some people don't like rainy days. But it keeps on raining nonetheless. Politics is an inherent part of our culture. It cannot not come up. Of course there was some degree of political bias (one suspects lots of different streams of political bias) running through the voting membership of WorldCon prior to SP mobilizing existing and new voters. The trouble is with folks who try to frame the argument as, either something is (a) non-political or (b) a conspiracy.

Oh I agree that politics is important part of culture and entertainment but doesn't stop some people from wanting their entertainment to be judged in a-political way. Even though it may be a fruitless exercise.