Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:WIRED has it right (Score 1) 1044

No, you do not get what I am saying. The vote was not "rigged". How could it be "rigged", as it's a distributed ballot? Your argument seems to be, "the number of voters was so small that the vote could have easily been rigged, therefore the vote was rigged". That's not an argument.

Comment Re:Bad voting method, abused by Shmucks (Score 1) 1044

it was people like Mary Robinette Kowal and John Scalzi that urged the destruction of the Hugo's.

Citation needed. In fact, I can save you the trouble of linking to John Scalzi's view of the Puppies' stuffing of the nominations. That does not urge the destruction of the Hugo's. Actually, it states unequivocally that what the Puppies had done was fine and that there was no need to change the process

Comment Re:The Sad Puppies won. (Score 2) 1044

Don't be ridiculous. Anybody could have signed up to vote in the Hugos. You could have signed up if you wanted to. Of the people who signed up, the majority didn't want the sub-standard SP entries to win Hugos, so they voted "No award". It's not "bullying" if you lose a vote. It's democracy.

Comment Re:And the winner is... Vox Day (Score 1) 1044

That article doesn't say what you think it says. The context of that article was a lot of people running around saying that the Hugos were doomed because the various "puppies" groups had managed to nominate some garbage by voting for a slate. Scalzi's article simply explains that while it's possible for a minority to get things nominated, that doesn't mean that it's possible for the minority to get Hugos awarded. In other words, everybody's doom and gloom about the Hugos was misplaced.

It's worth reading his article, because it is quite interesting and it is how I learned a lot about the process.

Comment Re:SJW prove the SP's point (Score 3, Interesting) 1044

You've linked to that article but you clearly haven't read it! Scalzi simply explains the rules and how he interprets them. His article was in response to a lot of hand-wringing about the puppies' attempt to vote for a slate. Lots and lots of people were forseeing doom and gloom for the Hugos, Scalzi's article was simply to explain that while it's possible to get nominations on the ballot paper by colluding, it's a very different thing to getting Hugos awarded. You should read the article - it's pretty interesting.

Comment Re:Fans' Vote Was No Award (Score 1, Interesting) 1044

So the people who voted No award are "minions" of John Scalzi. And you're suggesting that he only has to suggest it and hundreds of people with fork out $40 each so that they can do exactly what he says? Are you serious? Novels cost - what - $10? So you think people are going to spend four times the price of one of his novels just so that they can vote according to his instructions. What would they gain from that?

All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford