Date: Sunday, 12 April 2015 05:16 am (UTC)
ext_26142: (Steve Shield by beccadg)
Some people have said it would be best to vote for what you wanted to vote for in the first place...

Upon a good deal of reflection I think they're right. I think to vote any other way is to surrender your freedom to vote how you want to the bigots. I mean voting against people who appeared on their slate solely because they appeared on their slate is ultimately no different than voting for people who appeared on their slate solely because they appeared on their slate. Either way, you've allowed your choices to be dictated by the slate, and the bigots who put that slate together. John Scalzi said, "I’m not inclined to punish creators strictly on the basis of who has nominated them, or why." Charlie Jane Anders said, "The best you can hope for is that the quality of the work winds up getting considered first and foremost, over other factors." I think the fairest thing to do for yourself, for the creators who've been nominated, and for the non-bigot voters who participated in the nominating process is to make full use of your freedom.

...but the problem with that is the slate people will undoubtedly take credit for any win...

You should no more let what the bigots will do dictate your actions than you should let what the bigots have done dictate your actions. Teresa Nielsen Hayden said, "Want to strike back against the Sad Puppies and everything they represent? Buy a supporting membership. Vote for the nominees you love or like or find worthy. Do it with no agenda beyond your love of SF. Next year, buy one early enough to nominate." It seems like one of the things getting lost is that even at the nominating stage not all of the voting was being done by the bigots. Eleven out of the seventeen categories has at least one nomination that did not appear on the bigots' slate. Those were clearly voted for by people not voting from the slate. It can be inferred by those nominations, and other factors, that some of the other nominees who did appear on the slate where voted for by people besides the bigots who were voting strictly from the slate.

I think the biggest thing the bigots did was expose how difficult choosing nominees for the six categories they dominated are without some kind of a guide. Hell, even if you do have a guide. For four of those six categories the Sad Puppies couldn't come up with five things/people to nominate. Just look at the entry numbers for those six categories --
Best Novella (201 entries)
(The Sad Puppies listed 3 choices, not 5.)
Best Novelette (314 entries)
(The Sad Puppies listed 4 choices, not 5.)
Best Short Story (728 entries)
(Okay, this is where limited knowledge/choice wasn't the problem.)
Best Related Work (346 entries)
Best Editor, Short Form (187 entries)
(The Sad Puppies listed 4 choices, not 5.)
Best Editor, Long Form (124 entries)
(The Sad Puppies listed 4 choices, not 5.)
From:
Anonymous
OpenID
Identity URL: 
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

kaffyr: The TARDIS says hello (Default)
kaffyr

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
7 89 101112 13
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:59 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios