More Words, Deeper Hole

"Cheryl is straight-up lying"

If that refers to this exchange, and this apparent reference to it, I think you're unfairly characterizing what Cheryl Morgan wrote. "Crooked game" necessarily implies dishonesty (if not necessarily legal wrongdoing). In fact, it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

From:

As pointed out in the conversation itself, metaphors exist. Ditto, the discussion of US elections, etc. I'm not unfairly characterizing anything. She entered the conversation, what was actually said was explained to her by three different people, and she ignored all that and went on her flounce anyway, using a term that nobody actually used to refer to the Hugos process. (Indeed, the process wasn't even under discussion; the results were.)

That is straight-up lying, complete with weasel wording like "can be taken to imply"—nice plausible deniability there.

From:

"Game" is the metaphor; "crooked" is the characterization of dishonesty that the metaphor is meant to communicate. Crookedness in this sense is corruption. (Synonyms exist, as well as metaphors, and not every paraphrase is a mischaracterization.)

"the process wasn't even under discussion; the results were"

The game has to be the process, not the results, if the metaphor carries any meaning at all.

From:

"Game" is the metaphor; "crooked" is the characterization of dishonesty that the metaphor is meant to communicate.

Wow, you actually write novels and teach school and make such basic, basic errors of reading comprehension? "Playing" and specifically deciding against playing the crooked game is the metaphor for complaining about Hugo results without participating in the Hugo vote, as Farah insisted that Lavie must do before being allowed to bitch.

Even if this were somehow actually confusing, the "crooked game" remark followed a discussion on whether a UK resident could complain about the results of US elections, and whether an anti-war voter most vote for one of two pro-war candidates in order to complain about war.

From:

I'll skip past your childish and perfectly in-character ad hominem abuse and go to the odd pulsating heart of your argument:

"deciding against playing the crooked game is the metaphor for complaining"

Deciding is the metaphor for complaining? Abstract = abstract is a poor pattern for a metaphor. But there's still the question of what "crooked game" means in this context. There's no way it can't refer to the Hugo-award process if the Hugo awards are actually what's under discussion. The fact that US elections were used as a comparison really underscores this. That's a process, well worth complaining about.

A metaphor isn't a "get out of responsibility free" card. Metaphors have meanings; otherwise no one would use them. One may legitimately object to a meaning conveyed by a metaphor.

Edited Date: 2011-09-01 06:25 pm (UTC)

From:

I'll skip past your childish and perfectly in-character ad hominem abuse

Hmm, clearly you *won't* do any such thing. At any rate, when you call someone dishonest in defense of another person's dishonesty, expect to be chastised for it. Or was my mistake in concluding some difficulty with reading instead of outright malevolence?

Deciding is the metaphor for complaining?

For complaining without first participating. I did use a little shorthand there, I suppose because I assumed you actually looked at the Twitter conversation you linked to. Sorry to make the mistake of assuming even the slightest bit of readerly integrity on your part. Won't happen again.

The fact that US elections were used as a comparison really underscores this. That's a process, well worth complaining about.

To you think the US political process is "crooked" or "corrupt"? I don't. However, it has something in common with crooked games—participating in the process as a voter (or player) has no real effect on the outcome. If you do think the US process is crooked or corrupt—what are the corrupting influences? If it's stuff like pressure groups, factionalization, voters who are often unclear on who or what they are voting for, and occasional rewriting of the rules to influence outcomes...well then, have you heard of this award called the Hugos?

From:

You're pretty thin-skinned for someone who's always slathering on the personal abuse. If you don't like being called on it, don't play that game.

"you think the US political process is 'crooked' or 'corrupt'?... what are the corrupting influences?"

Yes, in a multitude of ways. The corrupting influence is money. I could not take seriously the analysis of someone who doesn't see this. You might have a look at some of the stuff Lawrence Lessig has been saying for years, as a first shot at understanding my attitude, if that's of any interest to you.

"what are the corrupting influences? If it's stuff like pressure groups, factionalization, voters who are often unclear on who or what they are voting for, and occasional rewriting of the rules to influence outcomes...well then, have you heard of this award called the Hugos?"

Then you are suggesting corruption? I thought Cheryl Morgan was "straight-up lying" when she inferred this?

(no subject)

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:15 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:49 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 07:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 08:00 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 09:44 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 09:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 03:13 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 04:48 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 05:09 am (UTC) - Expand

Speaking of QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Speaking of QED

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 06:44 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Speaking of QED

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 07:04 am (UTC) - Expand

QED (again)

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 01:47 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED (again)

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 03:08 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: QED (again)

From:

jamesenge.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-02 06:33 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

What

jamesenge said.

Any sensible person realizes that there's no such thing as an objective "best" since "best" is subjective when evaluating matters of taste. It doesn't matter whether the award is popularly voted by the members of a large club (which is effectively what WSFS is since you merely have to pay the membership dues to vote), by "anyone with a web connection" (which is what a lot of people really mean when they say, "Nobody should have to pay to vote," or if it's juried by a small, select group. "Best" is a term of art. There are periodically calls to change the title to "Most Popular," one of which actually was introduced before the WSFS Business Meeting (it was killed immediately without debate; the question is an obvious non-starter).

The Hugo Awards more or less average out the opinions of what is "best," although that will always make some people unhappy. Indeed the voting system is geared to select the works that are "least disliked" rather than "most liked." That's why it's not unusual for a work to have the lead in first-ballot preferences but not win the award; it means that the work is popular with a plurality of the voters but is actively disliked by a majority of them.

Calling a system "crooked" when you really mean "The things I like don't win," seems disingenuous to me.

I remain convinced that those people who are convinced that they know better should go set up their own awards and see how much attention anyone pays to them. Just don't call them "Hugo Awards" or use a rocket-ship design for the trophy.

From:

And here is another classic example is ridiculous hectoring and strawman arguments that make the Hugos not worth taking all that seriously.

Any sensible person realizes that there's no such thing as an objective "best" since "best" is subjective when evaluating matters of taste.

Well, no, actually. No on several grounds. One, a retreat into subjectivity is an argument against having the awards voted on—the winners can be selected via random lottery if evaluation is truly subjective. There is an embedded assumption that the fans can choose the best—this is intersubjective verification. Indeed, the fact that "Most Popular" is a "non-starter" is evidence that Hugo partisans really do think they are voting for the best. (Though I do wonder if "Fan Choice" would have more traction.)

If you really think the end result of any award is subjective, Kevin, then you wouldn't spend so much time defending the Hugos. You clearly do think that there is something there.

Two, it's not just a matter of taste. On this thread, someone mentioned voting for several categories randomly. I know that some people voted for me not because they read and enjoyed the books I edited, but because they read and enjoyed the book I wrote a few years ago, or my LJ. People do vote for books they've not read, people whose names they kind of heard of, strategically in an attempt to keep someone they don't like from winning regardless of who they vote for, or vote for someone because it's "time" for them to win, etc. And, of course, the rules for the Hugos themselves change due to faction fights, campaigns, etc. All rather aside from issues of taste.

You can't legitimately retreat behind subjectivity and support awards, and you can't legitimately claim that the only critique of the Hugos are based on differing tastes. You do, of course, for personal reasons.

Calling a system "crooked" when you really mean "The things I like don't win," seems disingenuous to me.

Insisting that I really mean something I don't really mean is a straight-up lie in defense of another straight-up lie.

I remain convinced that those people who are convinced that they know better should go set up their own awards and see how much attention anyone pays to them.

I was an early part of the formation Shirley Jackson awards and still regularly make reading suggestions to the jury. It's only been around for a few years, but the awards have had some good media coverage, call-outs on nominated books, successful fundraising, etc. Oh, and the fans who follow it are somewhat less likely to laugh at the results.

From:

I'll clarify my position. Historically I'd always try to make an effort to have read the Best Novels - but Short Fiction I'd typically either vote for the one I'd read, or no award, or vote based on what I'd heard or thought of the list.

But you are correct, some voting does go with, I like X and I read Y, and therefore I will vote for them.

For the Fan Hugo's I'm not sure that that is necessarily as much of a problem as some people seem to think it is. Jame's aside, I was quite pleased with the Fan Writer Hugo as I think Claire richly deserved the award.

From:

You can vote however you like, of course. It's fun to click buttons, as the many polls this blog's host provides shows.

My only objection is the conflation of all possible critique of Hugo results with differing matters of taste, since taste isn't the only motivator of voting behavior.

From:

james-nicoll.livejournal.com

Jame's

(whine of pain)

From:

Ugh... sorry... James..

From:

scott-sanford.livejournal.com

It goe's with the Hugo's.

From:

And to further clarify, I think this is why the advent of the Voter's Packet makes this MUCH better.

From:

I too am in favor of voter packets. I'm in favor of increased distribution of cultural artifacts generally. Whether this will alter outcomes remains to be seen.

From:

It's the inherent problem with popular votes. Which is part of the fun of them and why it's amusing that our "premium" award is always going to throw up weird results.

On the other hand, we can't claim that panels of experts are any less likely to be swayed by this kind of thing either. The Oscars are a great example of that.

From:

I'd argue that the problem with the Oscars is that the panels are too large, especially for Best Picture.

I think awards like the World Fantasy and Shirley Jackson—small juries—lead to consistently better results. Not perfect results, mind you, but better ones.

From:

What I think is that the aggregate opinion of the Hugo Award electorate won't necessarily reflect the opinions of any one voter, or of any one critic either. It is simply impossible to devise an awards process that pleases everyone, and anyone who pretends otherwise is fooling him/herself. Furthermore, taking a position that amounts to "The Hugos should simply be given to what I personally like, and any other result means that the process is broken" doesn't make you look very good.

I know you're going to claim that's not what you mean, but it sure sounds like it to me.

What I spend my time defending is the process. The Hugo Award process is a lot more open and transparent than most award systems. But I think a lot of people are actually more comfortable with closed, secretive systems, because it makes them feel better to believe in conspiracies (whereas since the Hugo nominating/voting results are open to inspection, are much more difficult to prove unless you assert corruption) whenever their favorites don't win.

From:

I know you're going to claim that's not what you mean, but it sure sounds like it to me.

Of course it does, but only because you don't actually have an answer for my real complaint, and because you have invested a lot of your time and energy in the Hugos, which makes it difficult for you to say, "Yeah, it's silly nonsense, but I like it." I'm not insisting on a perfect Hugo—I'm insisting that non-voters (and voters) have a right to point to the results and say, "Ah, this book won because X is a famous blogger. This book won because Y is very popular. The book won because Z and and the contributors to it launched a campaign on Twitter to make it so. This Fan Artist won because he spent the last year traveling to conventions across the country and shaking hands with people" without the inevitable response of, "But it's a matter of taste! You're just being a snooty asshole, and you have to vote to complain!"

From:

Okay, I concede some of your point. But if you want to stand outside of the process and point fingers at it when it's actually possible to get involved and do something about it (unlike, say, the analogy of elections in countries where you aren't eligible to participate), then don't expect to be taken as seriously as you might like.

Sure, you can complain all you want, but tell me why anyone should actually listen to you?

(no subject)

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-09-01 09:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

seth ellis (from livejournal.com)

I'd like to pick up on this, as an interested outside observer of fandom, because I've heard it said a lot.

The Hugo's voting statistics are transparent, but the overall process is not, and I have to say that the Hugo's overall intent is not transparent either, at least to an outsider. Hugo has, in my perception, a vague reputation as "fandom's award," but what does the Hugo mean by "fandom," and how does it go about figuring out what "fandom" wants?

I'm an artist, and in my field awards like the Pollock-Krasner and the Guggenheim are administered by foundations that bear the same name, and awarded by jurists. It isn't democratic by any stretch of the imagination, but it's very clear what they're doing, who's doing it, and why. If, by some chance, you think the awards are being administered by art-world insiders with a blinkered and old-fashioned view of artmaking, there are actual people standing behind the process whose motives are possible to figure out, which may or may not substantiate your opinion.

But who's choosing the Hugos? 1800ish people voted for best novel. That's apparently less than half as many people as attended Renovation, and I assume it's a tiny fraction of the number of people who bought any one of the nominated novels. Lots of people are fans now, even in the specific sense of belonging to a fannish community. With that much potential disparity between sample size and the body being sampled, sampling method becomes very important, and that seems to be completely haphazard ("We're representing you, so give us money" is not an efficient way to build a sample base). That makes the Hugo's voting base, the nature of the body doing the choosing, not at all transparent.

Suppose lots of Whatever readers vote on the Hugos, just because John Scalzi mentions the deadlines a lot and his blog is very popular. That might mean that Hugo voters are disproportionately likely to be fans of military sf and old-fashioned story types. Or it might not, because there's no way to tell which fans are being tapped for the process, except for the apparent vague assumption that if they're important to the process, they must already be participating. This, I think, is why some people find the Hugo results to be disappointing; not that their personal tastes differ, but that the results aren't representative of their understanding of fandom. And there's no way but educated guessing to figure out what actually is being represented.

If the Hugo is the fandom award, then the Hugo process apparently needs to sample "fandom" more efficiently. If the Hugo is just an award given by some fans, then that could be signalled more clearly. Just changing the name to "the WorldCon award" would clarify things, even though it doesn't sound as good.

From: