james_davis_nicoll | Not related to previous post

You're contending that fifty-dollar price tags increase an author's chance of winning the Hugo?

Yes, for a long-anticipated bad book.

Really?

Yes.

Are you even trying to make sense?

Yes. Cognitive dissonance. People were waiting for nine years for a book, spent fifty bucks to read the complete two-volume set and...gosh, it wasn't actually very good. Well, cognitive dissonance, which is a real phenomenon, is a feasible explanation for why some voters would champion a bad book at award time—they spent so much time waiting for it, and so much money to read it, that it really had to be good after all. The higher the effort, the greater the justification. So yes, a $50 book would trigger more dissonance than, say, a bad mass market paperback people were sure they were "supposed" to like. There are other issues as well—Willis's personality, popularity, momentum from other awards, etc. but cognitive dissonance is a real phenomenon.

Connie's 779 to 753 victory over a novel as weak as Feed doesn't scream shoo-in to me.

And yet, tons of people predicted a Willis win, and they were right. At Worldcon itself, at the Hugo reception specifically, on the 'net beforehand, etc. I heard very few other predictions of which book would win (not should win)—especially after Willis won the Nebula and the Locus.

Feed was also a weak novel, but the author is popular online and among fandom.

"Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem."

The internet is full of people who think no one else can read. It makes them happy and does no one else harm, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

As for me: I object to money as a corrupting influence in politics, and suggest you look at Lessig. Lessig objects to money in politics, but also stuff I don't object to. Lessig is not some secular pope who issues encyclicals I'm obliged to stand by. I agree with him to the extent I agree with him and no more. And in the church of special interests, I am definitely an atheist. Everyone has interests. Every political system has to deal with them or avoid dealing with them. It's money that's corrupting the US political system. I've said so repeatedly--and so does Lessig. That's what I agree with him about.

Your assertions regarding what I believe regarding the Hugos and US politics are false. You have occasion to know this, despite your constant assertions to the contrary. Anyway, you had no business trying to put words in my mouth: it's for me to say what I believe, not tamely assent to the script you've pre-written. You are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty, as always.

Lessig is not some secular pope who issues encyclicals I'm obliged to stand by.

An especially sad attempt at a dodge.

I summarized Lessig's view on US politics/elections thusly: He says they are corrupt due to special interests, most specifically corporate interests.

You respond, about my summary by saying that you recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here

I provide a link reinforcing my summary that Lessig sees special interests as the problem.

You insist
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics. As I said before and you now confirm (although you again distort his views).

I point out several more links demonstrating that my summary of Lessig's views are correct—he is against special interests, and would not agree with your claim: "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics".

Then you come back with, well, you don't actually agree with Lessig when he talks about special interests. So what? My objection was to your lie—that I was mischaracterizing his views. I did no such thing. You lied repeatedly that I did, without even attempting to provide reasoning for such, of course.

If you believe that money somehow corrupts independently of political actors using money, well, you're just a moron. But I knew that already. But I did not distort Lessig's views by summarizing them as "[US politics are] corrupt due to special interests." You just said I did until I produced enough links that even your bestest buddies in the world would start to look at you funny.

So you think special interests, if they don't use money, isn't corrupting. Sadly, however, special interests among Hugo voting factions do use money.

Well, the voting packet takes place after nominations, so if the pool starts off fairly weak...

So your definition of a "shoo-in" is a book lots of people predict will win, even if lots of people don't actually vote for it? It barely got a fifth of the first place votes, 20.6%, and only 50.8% of the final-round votes; if its victory was so inevitable, shouldn't there be some evidence of better-than-average performance in the actual balloting?

You're basically arguing that something that did occur, and that many people predicted would occur, was in fact not a predictable occurrence.

But her post...in contrast to what alternative claim out there?

I was contrasting the notion that the Twitter exchange was the sole reason for Cheryl's post versus her multiple reasons she wrote in the post itself. You said she referenced "a whole bunch of stuff" in her post, but your definition of "a whole bunch of stuff" is all the stuff in the Twitter exchange. Personally, I think she referenced the exchange plus blogs, fan comments, the comments of professionals, and controversies of previous years. I also speculate that her post was written in the context of all of the complaints that have been swirling around since the ceremonies, not just the complaints made in that one Twitter exchange.

For example, early on you said Cheryl saw the Twitter exchange and had it explained to her, but "ignored all that and went on her flounce anyway, using a term that nobody actually used to refer to the Hugos process." I think it's possible that she used the term "corrupt" because it was out there on the internet in places like File 770 and the first comment on Tor's Hugo winners post. These aren't direct examples, but close enough to suggest the term didn't come from you at all.

In words you apply to others: you're lying.

My "basic argument" is that it wasn't inevitable, and that putting a different novel on the ballot might have changed the outcome, even though there still would have been a lot of people predicting she would win. I personally think that "a novel which got 50.8% of the vote against a so-so book might have lost against a better one" is a stronger argument than "a novel which got 50.8% of the vote against a so-so book couldn't possibly lose against a better one, because lots of people predicted beforehand that it would win".

I was contrasting the notion that the Twitter exchange was the sole reason for Cheryl's post versus her multiple reasons she wrote in the post itself.

The notion...which nobody ever put forward. Ever. Even allowing you expansion from the exchange with me to the exchange in general with the other people involved.

You said she referenced "a whole bunch of stuff" in her post, but your definition of "a whole bunch of stuff" is all the stuff in the Twitter exchange.

Do you know the difference between only discussing one reason—though the exchange itself holds at least two (Lavie being anti-Hugo, my remark about whether it is acceptable to complain without voting)—and claiming that there is only one sole reason?

I think it's possible that she used the term "corrupt" because it was out there on the internet in places like File 770 and the first comment on Tor's Hugo winners post.

The word corrupt appears in the first link in this sentence: We have fannish communities with varied interests and tastes and while it’s typical of the age to assume the other side is biased and corrupt, in fact it’s everyone’s privilege to like what they like. That is, the word appears in a sentence that expresses agreement with Cheryl's own sentiments about the Hugos.

The word corrupt appears in that second link this sentence: A bit dispiriting that a process as corrupt as the Nebulas here echoes the decision of the largest gathering of Hugo voters in its history. What is corrupt? The Nebulas, not the Hugos. Cheryl Morgan does not seem to be a participant in the tor discussion; she's mentioned in File 770 in a broadly related context, but not otherwise.

On the other hand, she's part of the Twitter exchange, is clearly upset in her flounce with the "professionals"—not fan writers or pseudonymous commenters on blogs—and then quit a project she was doing with Lavie as part of her flounce. It's a rather extreme reach to suggest that by "professionals" who "have said things that can be taken to imply they think the process is corrupt" she meant a) a fan writer who said that the process wasn't corrupt, or b) a pseudonymous commenter saying that some other, significantly different process, is corrupt instead of the actual pros she was talking to the day before. "Possible" sure? It's also possible you're just a school psychology experiment, right?

I hadn't heard of Seanan McGuire or read anything by her - I wouldn't have heard of Feed had it not been a nominee, and I probably wouldn't have read it had people reading through the nominees list not enthused bouncily about it - and that would have been a great pity since it's really very good.

In words you apply to others: you're lying.

Nope. You're dodging.

My "basic argument" is that it wasn't inevitable, and that putting a different novel on the ballot might have changed the outcome

You do realize that part of the predictions that Willis was going to win was based on the nominees, and not just some airy generality, right? So yes, in some different universe with a different ballot, it may have been less obvious that Willis was going to win. However, the predictions were made after the nominees were announced in this universe.

"a novel which got 50.8% of the vote against a so-so book couldn't possibly lose against a better one, because lots of people predicted beforehand that it would win".

Not "because lots of people predicted"—what was your obnoxious question above? Oh yeah, "Are you even trying to make sense?" Did I say that predictions caused the victory? No, I said that the winner was easy to predict, and indeed, was widely predicted. Why? Easy—Willis wins a lot. The book won the Nebula and the Locus, and there is some voter overlap as SFWA members and Locus subscribers have a tendency to be Worldcon voters. The only other person as famous as she on the ballot was running with the nth installment as a series book. The long wait, high profile, and high price of the books make people want to like them. That's how predictions work in the absence of pre-vote polling.

Using the vote itself to work backwards and say that the winner maybe wouldn't have been the winner if only it competed against other books isn't relevant to the fact that many in-the-know people looked at the actually existing ballot, predicted Willis would win, and then she did.

Do you know the difference between only discussing one reason—though the exchange itself holds at least two (Lavie being anti-Hugo, my remark about whether it is acceptable to complain without voting)—and claiming that there is only one sole reason?

I wasn't passing judgment on your definition of "whole bunch of stuff," I was clarifying how you and I differ on said "stuff."

That is, the word appears in a sentence that expresses agreement with Cheryl's own sentiments about the Hugos.

Absolutely. It's an example of how someone expressing Cheryl's sentiments can come up with the word "corrupt" all on their own without getting it from you.

Your theory is rather labored: Cheryl has taken your metaphor "crooked game" and ignored multiple explanations as to its meaning, changed the phrase to "corrupt" and used it as part of a lie just so she could get out of Lavie's Travel Fund. She has just dumped Clarkesworld, SF Awards Watch, the Travel Fund, and the SF&F Translations Awards because of a couple of things you and Lavie said on Twitter.

But maybe it's not all about you, Nick. Neither you nor Lavie were quoted, she didn't mention Twitter, and none of you said the word "corrupt."

I think the Twitter exchange was the straw that broke the camel's back. You think it was the whole hay bale, the camel, and the road it walks.

...is clearly upset in her flounce with the "professionals"—not fan writers or pseudonymous commenters on blogs

Well, except for the fact that she mentions more than just professionals. Bolded by me:

Depressingly much of this has come, not just from outraged fans, but also from professionals in the field. ... And a few, I suspect, are trying to stir up controversy in the hope of getting more traffic to their blogs. ... Nothing I have seen has been directed at me, which is a big relief after the ridiculous nonsense last year.

Whoops, there she goes, mentioning fans and blogs and controversies of previous years.

(Reposted for typos and formatting.)

Your claims—in your exact words—were that "individual participation won't change the results" and "why bang a drum to get, say, Novel X nominated, when Connie Willis will roll in and win anyway because She Is The Connie?"

My argument was that a four-vote difference in the nominating process might have made a difference. My claim (exact words) was that "I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that Connie Willis might have done worse against stronger competition". I supported that argument with the narrowness of her win against the novels she was up against.

To claim now that hypothetical situations involving different ballots are irrelevant, when the claim you're defending and the claim I'm arguing against is that there's no point in participating in the nominating process because (your words again) Connie Willis will roll in and win anyway regardless of whether Novel X makes the ballot or not, is—what's that word you just used?—dodging. Or lying. Take your pick.

You are again arguing that the Hugo Award process is corrupt-- not according to your own definition, but one you again insist against the evidence is mine. So, according to you, someone not only does but must believe that the Hugo process is corrupt. Therefore CM wasn't lying.

I'd like my Manage Comments not to continue to be almost entirely filled with this discussion and since participants are not converging on a final synthesis, closing statements please.

Thanks! I think it's both too marginal and too late to make much impression, but I'm glad you liked it.

I was clarifying how you and I differ on said "stuff."

We don't differ. You imagine I do because you need some method to turn my objection into an exercise in ego rather than an exercise in simply reading Cheryl's comments in context.

It's an example of how someone expressing Cheryl's sentiments can come up with the word "corrupt" all on their own without getting it from you.

That's funny, because Cheryl's complaints are rather specific about who was saying that the Hugos were corrupt. She cited professionals over fans—it's no wild coincidence that the only pros named in her piece (except for listing Willis) were me and Lavie. Why not name Nora and Aliette, whom she only alludes to via their ethnicity? They didn't bug her.

Cheryl has taken your metaphor "crooked game" and ignored multiple explanations as to its meaning, changed the phrase to "corrupt" and used it as part of a lie just so she could get out of Lavie's Travel Fund. She has just dumped Clarkesworld, SF Awards Watch, the Travel Fund, and the SF&F Translations Awards because of a couple of things you and Lavie said on Twitter.

Not quite my theory. But yes, she did ignore multiple explanations as to its meaning—as did you, btw, since you found them insufficient as they didn't come from me. And she didn't change the word to corrupt out of nowhere—Farah had introduced that term in the Twitter exchange. And hmm, let's see: after Lavie mocked something Cheryl was heavily involved in, she pulled out of a project she identifies as Lavie's (the travel fund). After mentioning how "We" did so well as to get my name on the ballot for Japanese SF, she drops out of the Translation award—which she had contacted me about from the very beginning, had me on a WFC panel about, and for which I've made donations of books for a raffle. And then she's out of other stuff too. That's how high dudgeon works. As pointed out on Genreville, she's thrown up her hands before. Yes, other things are going on—including things outside of the usual viper's nest of Hugo stuff—she lost a friend and project partner, for example. But clearly, she's referring to the Twitter exchange when she's talking about professionals talking about corruption, and bloggers looking for traffic.

Depressingly much of this has come, not just from outraged fans, but also from professionals in the field.

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and think that the main target of her ire isn't professionals, there's nothing at all I can do to help you.

And a few, I suspect, are trying to stir up controversy in the hope of getting more traffic to their blogs.

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and suggest that she might be talking about a pseudonymous comment on tor.com rather than, say, actual bloggers who are also pros—say, the obscure pro blog Lavie linked to, which started that Twitter exchange in the first place (and which was in response to something Scalzi wrote, and which Scalzi responded to, thus, yes, getting Damien many more hits than usual), I'm afraid you are truly beyond help.

Edited 2011-09-02 15:13 (UTC)

My argument was that a four-vote difference in the nominating process might have made a difference.

So you acknowledge that individual participation wouldn't make a difference. Unless I get to a) vote four times, and of course with secret foreknowledge of the book that b) needs just four votes and c) can, through various occult practices, be "better" enough to beat Connie.

There's another embedded assumption in there as well—one I wish was true! That better books matter. Who Fears Death was a better book, but it wouldn't have been at all any stronger a competitor than Nora's book. It's still a first novel with peculiar themes from a demographic not known for winning Hugos. So, if we swapped out Nora's book for it, nothing really would have changed.

To claim now that hypothetical situations involving different ballots are irrelevant

They're irrelevant to the idea that Connie's win was predicted and thus predictable. You "asked" in the typical obnoxious fashion: "if its victory was so inevitable, shouldn't there be some evidence of better-than-average performance in the actual balloting?"

My response was that the victory was predictable because of predictions people made after the ballot was released. That is, I'm not changing arguments, I'm making two.

Argument one: individual participation won't change the results. And indeed, we agree that they won't, because your formulation would need four people voting strategically in a pre-nominee pool to get a specific "close" book on the ballot that, indeed, would likely not have been able to knock Connie off. Incidentally, for an award like the Nebulas, you'd even have a point, as SFWA members can see how many recommedations a book or story has received, and vote strategically to try to push one onto or off of the actual ballot. Not so with the Hugo.

Argument two: in specific response to your claim that Willis's relatively low vote total made her shoo-in victory less of a shoo-in, I pointed out that the people who made the very easy-to-make and accurate prediction were looking at the specific ballot she was on, not a hypothetical ballot that you whipped up on the spot out of cotton candy and unicorn pee.

Yes, if Neil Gaiman had a novel on the ballot, Connie Willis might not have won. Indeed, if Neil Gaiman has a collection of stained toilet tissue right from his glorious bum on the ballot, Connie Willis might not have won. However, the sort of book that would knock Connie off (Diamond Age in 1996, American Gods in 2002) are, gosh, not the kind of book that might just barely stagger onto the ballot if only four more people had nominated it.

Any seven-year-old can see that the comment you are responding to is primarily about your lie that I mischarcterized Lessig by daring to say that he is against the influence of special interests in US elections.

That you utterly avoided even addressing that I'll take as an acknowledgment that you were just trying to bluster and bullshit you way through it.

Let me just say that, as it seems to me, the Hugo is trying to have it both ways: when we're celebrating the winners, it's fandom speaking to itself; when the process is commented on, it's a club award. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl.

Ellis got it in one. The evidence is all over this thread, given the endless permutations and outright nonsense people will spout to justify the Hugos as an award worth taking seriously, Cheryl's comments as somehow possibly about everything but the Twitter exchange, and the phony importance of individual effort when voting for the Hugos—though apparently we are graciously allowed to abstain from actual political elections.

Also, Lawrence Lessig really really does think that special interests influence US elections and politics overmuch, even if James Enge insists that this is somehow a mischaracterization of pretty straightforward views.

But to answer your original question: "Who's been saying the Hugo process is corrupt?" Nobody.

Edited 2011-09-02 15:15 (UTC)

I was surprised at the general "weakness" of the pool... but I didn't check too closely on the eligibility of a couple of books I expected to see there.

I see that Rosefox bumped this comment, and I agree 100%.

I would also opine that it's entirely proper to say that the process is corrupt or that the game is rigged without implying that specific agents are behaving improperly or with any bad intent at all.

Stuff happens.

If you believe that individual participation is meaningless unless you know in advance that your vote will change the outcome, then certainly I won't be able to change my mind. Most people would take the observation that a small number of people—this year, four at the nominating stage, or last year, one on the final ballot—could potentially alter the final outcome, as evidence that individual participation is not meaningless. I certainly have no interest in mounting a general defense of democratic voting. You could have saved a lot of time if you'd responded to my initial post, in which I said I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that ... we might be celebrating Nnedi Okorafor's first Hugo win if just four more people had nominated her, with "It only counts if a single voter could have changed things." (And the notion that voters can only make a difference if they're voting strategically is just bizarre. Nnedi Okorafor would have made the ballot with just four more votes, whether those voters were coordinating their efforts or not, and whether they were trying to defeat Connie Willis or not.)

You responded to I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that ... we might be celebrating Nnedi Okorafor's first Hugo win if just four more people had nominated her with the argument that Connie Willis is a shoo-in. Am I to understand, now, that this was a complete non sequitur, and that you weren't arguing that it would in fact be absurd to suggest that Nnedi might have won if she'd been on the ballot because Connie would have been a shoo-in regardless? If so, why are you wasting my time with complete non sequiturs?

I am not, in fact, assuming that Who Fears Death would have done better than The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms on the Hugo ballot, and in fact I specifically disclaimed that assumption: It's possible that Who Fears Death or Kraken wouldn't have fared any better if they'd made the ballot, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they would have lost. I'm saying that we know from the published voting statistics that The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms didn't win and probably couldn't quite win even if it hadn't been eliminated in the first round; we don't know how well Who Fears Death would have done; it's my personal opinion that Who Fears Death was a better book and one that I suspect would be a bit more appealing to Hugo voters; and that, therefore, it's not absurd to suggest that Who Fears Death might have won.

Not that it's terribly relevant, but you do know the meaning of the words fifth and third, right? The books that came in just ahead of Connie's Hugo-losing novels were actually The Terminal Experiment by Robert J. Sawyer and The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold.

And, to address another of your deliberately irrelevant tangents, I take the people who made "the very easy-to-make and accurate prediction" that Blackout/All Clear would get more than 50% of the vote in the final round as seriously as I take the ones who were sure that Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century would get more than 50% of the vote in the final round. I don't think the book that got 50.8% was any more of a shoo-in than the one that got 47.3%; I think the folks who predicted it just managed to narrowly avoid being wrong, instead of somewhat less narrowly avoiding being right.

I don't think Blackout was worse than Feed. I personally thought BO/AC was about middle of the list of things that got nominated.

Edited 2011-09-02 18:25 (UTC)

"Any seven year old can see..."

This schoolyardy taunty style of rhetoric is never persuasive, or even entertaining, but it does say something about the user.

Lessig is, in fact, principally concerned with the influence of money on politics. ("Lobbying" is another way to say "money" in this context, by the way.) I think he's good on that, and said so. I decline to accept the strawman argument you would assign to me. No one of any age should be surprised by that. It would be convenient for you if that were somehow dishonest of me, but that's just another of the convenient untruths that help you fill out a comment.

Not related to previous post

no subject

Re: Speaking of QED

Re: Speaking of QED

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

QED (again)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: QED (again)

Closing Statement

no subject

Re: Closing Statement

no subject

no subject

Re: QED (again)