Posted: 7/23/2024 12:35:37 AM EDT
|
Another year, more Hugo fckery: Statement In the course of tallying the votes on the final ballot for the 2024 Hugo Awards, the Glasgow 2024 Hugo Administration team detected some unusual data. Paragraph 6.2 of the WSFS Constitution states that “In all matters arising under this Constitution, only natural persons may introduce business, nominate, or vote, except as specifically provided otherwise in this Constitution. No person may cast more than one vote on any issue or more than one ballot in any election.” A large number of votes in 2024 were cast by accounts which fail to meet the criteria of being “natural persons”, with obvious fake names and/or other disqualifying characteristics. These included, for instance, a run of voters whose second names were identical except that the first letter was changed, in alphabetical order; and a run of voters whose names were translations of consecutive numbers. Many of these votes favoured one finalist in particular, who we will call Finalist A. This pattern of data is startlingly and obviously different from the votes for any other finalist in 2024, and indeed for any finalist in any of the previous years where any member of the current Hugo Subcommittee has been involved with administering the Hugo final ballot. In addition to patterns observable in the data, we received a confidential report that at least one person had sponsored the purchase of WSFS memberships by large numbers of individuals, who were refunded the cost of membership after confirming that they had voted as the sponsor wished. On the basis of the above evidence, we have concluded that at least 377 votes have been cast fraudulently, of a total of 3,813 final ballot votes that we received. We have therefore disqualified those 377 votes from the final vote tally. This decision is not one made lightly, but we are duty bound as the Hugo Administrators to protect the Hugo Awards and to act against fraud. We have no evidence that Finalist A was at all aware of the fraudulent votes being cast for them, let alone in any way responsible for the operation. We are therefore not identifying them. Finalist A has not been disqualified from the 2024 Hugo Awards. However, they do not win in their category, once the invalid votes have been disallowed. No other votes have been disallowed. The only votes disallowed are those which we have positively identified as not cast by natural persons. We recognise that after the Hugo voting in 2023, many in the community will, understandably, have questions about this. Unfortunately, our ability to answer is very limited, due to our responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the ballot and data protection regulations. There are proposals to institute a system of independent audit for Hugo votes. But at present such a system does not exist, therefore the raw 2024 voting data cannot and will not be shared outside the Glasgow 2024 Hugo team. However, the full voting results, nominating statistics, and voting statistics will be published immediately after the Hugo Awards ceremony on August 11th, 2024 as previously agreed in our transparency statement. Those will not include the 377 votes which have been disallowed but will include the other 3,436 votes. We believe that it is important for transparency that we inform you now about what has happened. We want to reassure 2024 Hugo voters that the ballots cast were counted fairly. Most of all, we want to assure the winners of this year’s Hugos that they have won fair and square, without any arbitrary or unexplained exclusion of votes or nominees and without any possibility that their award had been gained through fraudulent means. |
dfwlabrescue.org
|
Originally Posted By TxRabbitBane: Hugo and Nebula used to be interesting. Now they’re just another LBXXX popularity contest. I used to read Locus whenever I could find it. Then I subscribed for awhile about 25 years ago. I lost track of it until just a few years ago and when I read it I didn't even recognize it anymore. It was all woke all the time. The articles weren't about the interesting ideas the authors had, it was more about their color, race and their preference in sex partners. The more boxes they could tick off, the "better" the author. |
dfwlabrescue.org
|
Originally Posted By sheltot: I used to read Locus whenever I could find it. Then I subscribed for awhile about 25 years ago. I lost track of it until just a few years ago and when I read it I didn't even recognize it anymore. It was all woke all the time. The articles weren't about the interesting ideas the authors had, it was more about their color, race and their preference in sex partners. The more boxes they could tick off, the "better" the author. Originally Posted By sheltot: Originally Posted By TxRabbitBane: Hugo and Nebula used to be interesting. Now they’re just another LBXXX popularity contest. I used to read Locus whenever I could find it. Then I subscribed for awhile about 25 years ago. I lost track of it until just a few years ago and when I read it I didn't even recognize it anymore. It was all woke all the time. The articles weren't about the interesting ideas the authors had, it was more about their color, race and their preference in sex partners. The more boxes they could tick off, the "better" the author. There are some great SFF authors that aren’t straight, and I don’t give a shit one way or the other. The problem is that, in the last couple of decades, Hugo and Nebula have both become more about the woke checkboxes and less about the quality of writing. If I recall correctly, there was already a LBGXXX award for SFF, now Hugo and Nebula have become that as well. I’m not trying to say that those awards weren’t always somewhat woke, but I doubt these days a straight white male would have a chance to win unless they pass a very strict, super woke purity test and there wasn’t anything from “the community” to put ahead of it. I just want good books to read… |
Not fly enough to be halal....
| Agreed. One of my favorites is a lefty (don't think he's a prog), John Varley. Heinlein got into some weird stuff in his later life. That's his business, I enjoyed reading his stuff. While not strictly SF, but I liked Kurt Vonnegut and he was no Republican. |
dfwlabrescue.org