I'm not keen on making it more like the nebulas, with a limited voting pool, but there don't seem to be many other models for it. One possibility is changing the rules on nomination, so that the top six or eight get onto the final ballot, that would make it a lot harder to rig, otherwise I have absolutely no idea.
Realistically, there will always be glitches. But the Puppies were so loathsome that this reaction was pretty much inevitable.
I'm not keen on making it more like the nebulas, with a limited voting pool, but there don't seem to be many other models for it.
Do that, and the Hugos die. They become purely the award of a small clique which becomes steadily more isolated from fandom. They wind up replaced by some more widely-chosen award, voted on by more fans, which almost certainly is not progressive like the current clique.
... and Vox wins, because that was one of his pre-stated victory conditions.
One possibility is changing the rules on nomination, so that the top six or eight get onto the final ballot, that would make it a lot harder to rig, otherwise I have absolutely no idea.
You still run into the problem that the progressive options are also less popular.
But the Puppies were so loathsome that this reaction was pretty much inevitable.
Do you refer to the Rabid Puppies or the Sad Puppies? Are you aware of the difference? Have you ever read anything by John Wright, Larry Correia or Sarah Hoyt? Do you know any of the Puppies personally?
They may not be, but they're associating with those that are, and don't appear to be too bothered about it. And since they aren't paying for me to listen to their arguments - which should surely be part of the libertarian package - I'm really not going to cherry pick them as exceptions.
They may not be, but they're associating with those that are, and don't appear to be too bothered about it.
Why is "guilt by association" now respectable? Do you remember when that used to be thought of as a bad way to judge other people? And why aren't their opponents tarred by association with, say, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Samuel Delany, both of whom advocated and engaged in ephebophilia and possibly pedophilia? Or for that matter, all their opponents who were friendly to Communism back in the day when Communism was still smexy?
How are the Sad Puppies supposed to avoid "association with the Rabid Puppies anyway, when most of the "association" is made by other people and stuck on the Sad Puppies as labels? If you were a Sad Puppy, what would you do -- and why aren't you already doing it with regard to the parties and intellectual movements I named?
Tor Books have won the Hugo 9 times, by my count, in the last 35 years. Even in the last ten years, they only won 5 times. It's a strong showing, but by no means makes Hugos unwinnable for other publishers.
As to what can be done, I direct your attention to the E Pluribus Hugo proposal, which was passed by the Worldcon Business Meeting yesterday. It still has to be ratified next year, but it should effectively defang the threat of slates from 2017 onwards.
Plus I would imagine a sizeable chunk of the Puppy/Fan-kicker base will evaporate after this year, they had their blarney, they lost very badly indeed, and these people are people who like to win. And they'll know if they try it again next year they will just lose again.
So I think many of them will wander off in search of a new thing to rant about. Or go back to doxing women who play video games.
Plus I would imagine a sizeable chunk of the Puppy/Fan-kicker base will evaporate after this year, they had their blarney, they lost very badly indeed ...
In what sense did they "lose?" Their choices didn't win the awards in the major text categories -- but neither did yours. The one win -- The Three Body Problem for Best Novel -- was of a book which the arch-Rabid Puppy himself, Vox Day (Theodore Beale) liked but didn't get to read in time to put on his slate. It was also an anti-Communist hard-sf space opera, from what I understand. The one "progressive" thing about it was that it was written by a Chinese national, if that counts.
... and these people are people who like to win.
All people "like to win." What, other than the fact that you've pigeonholed them in your mind as "selfish villains," makes you think that these people like to win more than do other people?
And they'll know if they try it again next year they will just lose again.
What prevents them from further broadening the base and bringing in lots and lots of additional voters? Such as the gaming community? The Tor Clique was already foolish enough to attract Gamer Gate's attention by accusing them of being behind the Puppies; I think the Puppies will reach out to Gamer Gate and brinng in several thousands of new voters.
Your only hope is to narrow the voting pool by restricting voting to long-time WorldCon attendees. But if you do that, the Hugos become narrower and narrower, and less and less relevant to actual science fiction fandom.
Nasty dilemma, eh?
Or go back to doxing women who play video games.
You just proved my point. You imagine the Puppies and Gamer Gate to be the same thing. (And also imagine that Gamer Gate doesn't include a heck of a lot of "women who play video games").
You've learned nothing, and forgotten nothing, and I think that 2016 and 2017 will see even more Puppies. How long will you keep No Awarding in order to deny the awards to Puppy candidates?
Well the Puppy brigade positioned themselves quite cleverly in that the groundwork was laid that pretty much any result would be 'a victory'.
But I have absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate over the merits of a movement that has allied itself with people like Vox and his core supporters.
If people don't wanna get accused of being paranoid delusional nasty fascist woman-hating bullies, they probably shouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with paranoid delusional nasty fascist woman-hating bullies.
They've already figured out how to game the E Pluribis Hugo proposal, because their system of "gaming" is very simple ... they're just pulling in more voters who feel no compunction to vote for politically-correct candidates. In other words, they're broadening the base.
The flaw in your argument is that you assume the Hugo voting public is aiming for political correctness. If you look at how much MilSF wins it's fairly obvious that this isn't the case. There is a huge preponderance of people who vote on the merits of the stories, regardless of other factors, unless something happens to make them more aware of political issues, such as the puppies.
You'd better hope they're not aiming for political correctness -- because Forgotten Futures is anything but politically correct. You're keeping alive science fiction from the age when people seriously believed some fairly horrible things about those not fortunate enough to be born educated Westerners.
Oh, I love it too, but I'm very aware that these writers are what a lot of the science fiction "progressives" want us to forget or despise. If the SJW really succeeded in taking over science fiction completely, your zine would be scorned as well.
Realistically, the Hugos are the collective opinion of a tiny percentage of the people who read science fiction, play RPGs, etc. I have some interest in keeping them honest, since they ought to be a reasonable approximation of what's best in SF, but that's about it. If the entire voting body was absorbed into a single biased group mind, which is what the puppies seemed to be aiming for, it would simply tell me that it wasn't worth paying attention to the results any more. I really doubt that it would have any other effect on me or my interests.
They've already been absorbed into a single group mind, or rather clique.
And I'm not concern-trolling, I'm quite serious. The Clique periodically shows signs of turning on George R. R. Martin, and he's one of their few POPULAR authors. What makes you imagine yourself immune to this?