![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Redux redux
Apr. 7th, 2015 06:43 pmI'm sure I'm not saying anything here that hasn't been or isn't being said by wiser and more deeply involved people elsewhere. It's just that it's coincided with my desire to start reading much more contemporary SF. So bear with me (or ignore me :) as I try to think this through.
Hugo Awards Become A Joke After Ballot Stuffing Affects Nominations
Technically I think "ballot stuffing" is the wrong term, but this article explains how the Hugos were successfully gamed: by asking voters in an already small pool to pick specific works. Immediately, the problem for anyone who wants to oppose them either for political or for general fairness reasons runs smack into the question of whether to push a different specific set of works. And then of course there'd be multiple selections, and a fight over whose was the right one, dogs and cats living together, etc. Even just voting for whatever stuff the Sad Puppies didn't push is kind of dubious.
I guess opposition has to take a two-pronged approach. One, increase the size of the voter pool, thus making it harder to game the system. That would mean getting more people who are eligible to go ahead and vote (but how to instill in them the necessary "breathtaking fervor"?); and getting more people to become members of Worldcon so they can vote.
Two, seek out the kind of work that the Sad Puppies eschew; if it's good, make it known. This is something that can be done with the help of a library and blog, if you don't happen to have fifty bucks lying around. So here's where it overlaps with my project to read more contemporary SF. (I'd already subscribed to Locus with this goal in mind.) If all goes well you can expect some reviews here as the year goes on.
Hugo Awards Become A Joke After Ballot Stuffing Affects Nominations
Technically I think "ballot stuffing" is the wrong term, but this article explains how the Hugos were successfully gamed: by asking voters in an already small pool to pick specific works. Immediately, the problem for anyone who wants to oppose them either for political or for general fairness reasons runs smack into the question of whether to push a different specific set of works. And then of course there'd be multiple selections, and a fight over whose was the right one, dogs and cats living together, etc. Even just voting for whatever stuff the Sad Puppies didn't push is kind of dubious.
I guess opposition has to take a two-pronged approach. One, increase the size of the voter pool, thus making it harder to game the system. That would mean getting more people who are eligible to go ahead and vote (but how to instill in them the necessary "breathtaking fervor"?); and getting more people to become members of Worldcon so they can vote.
Two, seek out the kind of work that the Sad Puppies eschew; if it's good, make it known. This is something that can be done with the help of a library and blog, if you don't happen to have fifty bucks lying around. So here's where it overlaps with my project to read more contemporary SF. (I'd already subscribed to Locus with this goal in mind.) If all goes well you can expect some reviews here as the year goes on.
