Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Hello? Anyone here?
Date: 2 Dec 2024 03:10:07 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <vij8ef$11r$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="25399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1932

Robert Woodward  <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations. 
>While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies 
>appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their 
>own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of 
>the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the 
>latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary 
>taste, was this block voting?

The Sad Puppies were people with a legitimate gripe about the content
of the Hugo nominations and winners, and they were honestly trying to
change things for what they considered to be the better.  You could
argue that they were bloc voting but they were not trying to promote
specific works quite so much as a whole genre of works.  You may or 
may not agree with their aims but they were legitimate readers who
wanted change.

The Rabid Puppies were a bunch of kids who like to destroy things,
who found the Hugo system an easy target to try to destroy.  They
did not actually care about what got nominated as long as they could
piss off as many people as possible.  Bloc voting was a technique
they used for this.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."