What’s the saddest level of Sad Puppy campaiging there is?

So I’ve been watching the Sad Puppy 4 nomination list and drawing some graphs. I popped back to day to see how the numbers might have changed and wow, and awful lot of extra nominations for Declan Finn’s ‘Honor at Stake’. His standing in the ranks is also received coverage on his blog here and here.

Now fairs fair, Sad Puppies will probably devolve into the underlying core aspect of the campaign: self-promotion. So I can’t really fault Declan Finn for encouraging fans to give his work a boost (after all they are genuine fans and SP4 is about fans nominating stuff) but it shows the kind of multiplier effect that would occur if Sp4 was treated as a slate with a campaign.

 

Advertisements

49 comments

  1. thephantom182

    On the self-promotion front, I have but one word for you: Scalzi.

    And yes,obviously if an author is polling in the top ten at Sad Puppies 4, that’s money in the guy’s pocket. Something wrong with making money, Camestros?

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      Nothing wrong with making money in itself. However if Sad Puppies ends up just as a which-author-can-mobilise-best it may lose even further credibility. Mind you I haven’t read Honor at Stake and maybe it is really good…

      Like

      • thephantom182

        You know Camestros, most guys would pay attention to the world-class ass kicking you’re getting at MGC right now for trying to explain away the obvious and blatant Sasquan data shenanigans.

        Sometimes I go over to Vile770 and rip a couple of people a new one on subjects I know a little something about. The quality of the comments I get back is generally pretty low, strictly ad-hominem and trollish nit-picking. Last night I lost my temper with a few people, and laid it down a bit more fiercely than usual. I’m serious about the subjects I chose to speak on, and a few people seemed to actually get that. One person actually apologized to me personally for baiting me, something which is unique in my experience.

        You however have surpassed the common herd on the downside. Repeatedly.

        Sad Puppies doesn’t have credibility or need it, it isn’t about that. There is no brand being built. People don’t participate to look good. We participate to make -you- look -bad-. And you are helping, so thanks for that.

        We do it because we’re sick of a bunch of self-congradulatory liberals deciding unreadable crap written by their favorite pets shall be crowned “The best in Science Fiction” every year. For the last twenty to twenty five years, I’ve used Hugo nomination as a sign that a book is unreadable crap written by a liberal.

        Nice to know my $40 paid off though. It’s driving you completely crazy. Money well spent.

        Like

  2. thephantom182

    They are telling you that your “arguments” are unconvincing, and your tone is supercilious. The combination is apparently unwelcome, and many are saying you should leave.

    Personally I was unaware of the information Dave Freer presented in his post, and I find it disturbing. Also disturbing is the eagerness some are showing to jigger the voting rules. That alone is evidence of shenanigans in most situations where things are decided by an election. When “one man, one vote” is no longer good enough, there are most probably rats in the wainscoting.

    Mr. Freer’s larger point also seems wasted on you. In a contentious environment such as the Hugos, the -appearance- of impropriety is very damaging to an organization’s integrity. The release of a supposedly unreleasable data-set to one faction and no others is extremely improper, no amount of pretzelization from you is going to make it stink any less.

    I assumed WorldCon was run by idiots, cheaters and jerkoffs when I watched the award ceremony. The Assterisk is proof enough, this screwing with the data set is icing on the cake.

    Like

    • gregm91436

      The Sasquan business meeting passed a resolution confirming that Sasquan should let the EPH researchers have the data assuming it could be anonymized to people’s satisfaction. It was, and they did.

      In his post, Dave Freer compared the two researchers to a child molester, at which point he undermined whatever rational point he may have been trying to make. I haven’t forgotten Sarah Hoyt’s insane ad hominems from last year. Camestros tried to make some perfectly reasonable points and most commenters went ballistic, which is their thing.

      Like

      • thephantom182

        “It was, and they did.”

        The problem, as I understand it, is that it wasn’t, and they did it anyway. Under the fig-leaf of a “non-disclosure agreement” of unknown provenance, which one of the “researchers” immediately broke anyway. Furthermore the data will not be released to any other researchers, because it wasn’t. Also the “researchers” are Friends Of Tor, so that stinks like week-old rat as well.

        Camestros has decided that Sasquan’s breach of trust and the researchers breaking an NDA are both of no consequence. Dave Freer’s point was that regardless of the legality of these actions, WorldCon’s moral credibility is as of now completely fucked, and they’ll never get it back.

        But the important thing here is that Sad Puppies are the bad guys here, right? Just ignore the shenanigans gand get on with kicking those puppies, that’s a good boy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        “Also the “researchers” are Friends Of Tor” Friends of Tor? Because they posted comments on a blog of a guy who works for a company they are now magically aligned with that company? Do I now need to write a letter to the HR department of the place where I work telling them that you are now on of the company assets?

        The problem here is that Dave has piled one kooky conspiracy theory with little substance on top of a pile of others ones (PNH magically controls the Hugos! Tor is secretly a communist plot!) that make no or little sense. [e.g. Puppies claim both that PNH has a financial interest in winning Hugo awards and that a Hugo award win is of no financial benefit – that the two claims cancel each other out doesn’t matter in a world where logic is seen as a socialist plot]

        Ah well Phantom, by your own argument, you are now part of the sinister Camestros Felapton cabal. I appoint you with the task of making ludicrously bad pro-puppy arguments to make them look silly 🙂 – hey! Great job!

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Because they posted comments on a blog of a guy who works for a company they are now magically aligned with that company?”

        See, this is the type of thing that get’s you booted off MDG. If ‘posting comments on a blog of a guy who works for a company’ was the full and complete extent of the researcher’s connection to Tor, nobody would give a shit. That appears not to be the case, putting it mildly. You can pretend it is, but we both know you are pretending.

        I notice you dodged the “breaking an NDA” thing and the “data isn’t sufficiently anonymized but we’re giving to these dudes anyway because we’re solid bro’s” thing.

        Not to mention that the Worldcon business meeting will be getting presented with a controversial report that the leadership is not going to allow to be independently verified. That’s pretty major shenanigans all by itself.

        Were it a company, I’d be selling my stock post-haste. Because if insiders are playing fuck-around, my shares are at serious risk.

        To quote a famous, or perhaps infamous American socialist, “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Well now you have something of interest and substance to say. Aside from contributing to discussions on Making Light what are the associations of the researchers with Tor Publishing? Do tell. I’d love to see a list (with sources).

        Also, what will be ‘controversial’ about the report? I note both in your comments and in Dave’s piece that there is a lot of hand waving about evil doings but nothing specific. When pressed on the issue at MGC people shifted to claiming that it wouldn’t be the actual researcher but rather some secret insights in how to game EPH.
        If this was a novel I’d be getting a bit fed up with the number of plot holes!

        Like

      • thephantom182

        You dance very well, Camestros. But in a circle.

        You see, it is not up to me to verify the researchers possible connections. It is up to Sasquan to demonstrate there aren’t any conflicts of interest before they start handing out my data. Because they promised to keep it confidential.

        No such demonstration has been forthcoming. They gave the data to two guys, for unknown reasons, nobody else can have it. Tough shit.

        The two guys turn up on Making Light as bros of the Tor CEO and his wife.

        This is what’s called in industry “an appearance of impropriety”. If Sasquan had data that might cost me money right now, I’d be extremely concerned and burning up their phone lines.

        So you say it’s a “fact” that the researchers are not tight with the Tor CEO guy. How do you know that? Who are you, that you can make such an authoritative statement? If you’re just some guy, your assurances are worthless and you are making them to manipulate me, or more likely just to be annoying.

        If you are an insider in a position to know such things, your assurances are still worthless because you have reason to lie. You’ve said nothing which can be verified.

        See how making ‘statements of fact’ like that is horseshit? Tell me something I can go check. Then we’ll see, after I check it.

        As to your question “why is the report controversial?” I return you attention, again, to unverifiable report due to management decision not to release data to independent third parties, and broken non disclosure agreement. No competent businessman would tolerate such a situation for one second. He’d take his money and walk away.

        Your entire argument is “prove it!” I’m supposed to provide you with incontrovertible evidence of collusion between these parties, like video of them plotting or something. I’m supposed to run around, then you just say”well that’s preposterous!” to whatever I come up with, and see if you can sucker me into doing more fruitless work. Otherwise known as trolling.

        That’s not a very good argument. That’s why they booted you off MGC yesterday. Obviously.

        Freer’s argument is the thing reeks of impropriety, and it is damaging to WorldCon’s reputation. He is correct, and you are tap dancing like a demented monkey because…

        …that part I don’t get. You don’t like him? You don’t like that he’s right? You have money involved here? Somebody pays you to troll MGC?

        Inquiring minds want to know why you are standing in front of a pink elephant and screaming “THIS IS NOT A PINK ELEPHANT YOU DAMN PUPPIES!!!” Because it seems odd.

        Liked by 1 person

      • snowcrash

        I always like it when someone says “it’s your responsibility to disprove my accusations”. More than anything else, it shows that they have *nothing*.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //You see, it is not up to me to verify the researchers possible connections.//

        You claimed they had connections. It certainly is up to you to back up your own claims. That you can’t do so is noted.

        //Your entire argument is “prove it!” //

        Nope, not ‘prove it’ just at least back it up with something a bit more substantial. If I were to clai that you were being paid to post comment here by Baen (note: I do not think you are) then I’d need to back that up with something other than me thinking that felt true.

        Dave Freer throw out accusations of apparent impropriety – he is morally obligated to back that up with something other than his personal emotional state. Otherwise it is just trolling.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //nquiring minds want to know why you are standing in front of a pink elephant and screaming “THIS IS NOT A PINK ELEPHANT YOU DAMN PUPPIES!!!” Because it seems odd.//

        I’m simply asking the barker outside the circus tent to first confirm that he really does have a flying pink elephant inside the tent before I hand over my cash because I strongly suspect that he has simply glued some crepe-paper wings onto a piglet.

        You are, of course, free to declare that you have seen said piglet and confirmed that it really is an elephant on the grounds that you just *know* deep inside that it must be an elephant.

        Like

      • Mark

        The “Tor CEO”? Whoever could you be referring to, Phantom? Do you mean Tom Doherty, President of Tor, or perhaps Annette Thomas, CEO of Macmillan? Because no-one’s even mentioned a connection between Schneier and them. I think you should tell us immediately what nefarious scheme you’ve uncovered now.

        (Yes, I get that you were referring to PNH, but not realising that he’s simply a Tor editor, albeit one of the more senior ones, doesn’t really help your case when claiming he’s spearheading a conspiracy)

        Like

      • thephantom182

        Mark said: “The “Tor CEO”? Whoever could you be referring to, Phantom? Do you mean Tom Doherty, President of Tor, or perhaps Annette Thomas, CEO of Macmillan? Because no-one’s even mentioned a connection between Schneier and them. I think you should tell us immediately what nefarious scheme you’ve uncovered now.”

        Here again Mark, you’re trying to pretend this is some kind of courtroom and we are all lawyers. That’s not what’s going on, and for you to keep pretending it is seems silly. Like you’re just trying to be annoying. I don’t know PNH and TNH’s positions at Tor, just that they work there and have been extremely unpleasant of late.

        I don’t have much information, just scuttlebutt, three years of general observations and what Dave Freer said. From that, I conclude my deposits would not be safe in the Bank of Hugo. Lucky me, they’ve got nothing of mine I’m worried about.

        I’ve got $40 invested in WorldCon, Mark. I put that much in because they’ve been pissing me off with their bullshit about “The Best In Science Fiction And Fantasy!!!” since I was a kid. How much research should I do before concluding they’re a bunch of partisan socialist wombats who spend a lot of time trying to exclude me, hmm?

        Larry Correia turned the kitchen light on at the Hugos three years ago and we all saw a cockroach. There’s never -one- cockroach. That’s the sum total of the argument. You want to pretend this is the Supreme Court, knock yourself out.

        Like

      • Mark

        Phantom, Dave Freer would have imposed a comment limit on you by now. Luckily most people have more patience than Freer.

        “I don’t know PNH and TNH’s positions at Tor”
        You were claiming to though, which is what I was being caustic about. The real problem with the Tor conspiracy theory you’re subscribing to here is that none of its proponents can agree what it really is, or exactly how it works. They just throw out FUD which results in things like you believing PNH is the CEO. You strike me as a strong-minded and determined type, albeit one whose opinions I seem to disagree with, so why are you swallowing other people’s waffling theories without looking into it yourself? If you can come in with a real theory based on real facts then I’ll happily debate you, because no-one else subscribing to it has been prepared to stand still and defend it.

        “Here again Mark, you’re trying to pretend this is some kind of courtroom and we are all lawyers. That’s not what’s going on, and for you to keep pretending it is seems silly.”
        Umm, exactly where did I claim this was a courtroom, let alone more than once for you to say “again”? I’ve only made 4 or 5 comments, so I’m sure you can point out where.

        Anyway, I don’t think pointing out an incorrect factual statement is something that belongs in a courtroom; I find real facts helpful in all venues.

        Like

  3. gregm91436

    I can see how “polite but firm, and factually informed” could be mistaken as “supercilious,” but Camestros has been admirably on point without taking any of their bait, so small wonder that they’re angry.

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      More surreal than upsetting – particular Dave Freer being all cross-dad because I replied to the comments people made to me. The worst offenders were clearly not used to people replying in a civil but assertive manner.
      “dignity culture” – hmmmm

      Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        I see. Now when I see somebody claiming something is a fact when it isn’t then I present documented evidence that shows that it isn’t. What you seem to thing is the right response from the MGC is to throw tiny tantrums 🙂

        This is why I found your ‘ass-kicking’ comment bemusing. Their reaction looked less like an ass-kicking and more like a group of people who couldn’t refute what I was saying rationally and hence reverted to childish name calling. 🙂

        Like

      • Mark

        I just got around to reading that comment thread. Goodness. For a guy who likes to lambast other sites for censorship etc etc Freer is very fond of getting rid of people’s comments, and making up retrospective rules to do so.

        It was nice to see Freer restate his claims of a secret slate and/or PNH/TNH corrupting the hugo admins, captive votes, destroying careers, etc. The icing on the cake is him trying to take on Bruce Schneier and claim he’s corrupting himself in some way. I’m not sure Dave really comprehends how good Schneier’s rep is, and how hard people will laugh at attempts to smear him.

        I’m almost concerned about Hoyt. She’s not managed to make a coherent reply to criticism for a while now; she just lurches into insults within seconds. I hate to think what she’ll be like once kerfluffle season ramps back up properly.

        (Obviously I’m hoping for little or no kerfluffle season, but I’m not counting on it)

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Freer clearly had no idea who Schneier was, although more level commentators at MGC did point out his level of experience.
        Hoyt? Woah! She really struggled to get a coherent comment together. The ‘pedo-phil’ name for (I assume) Sandifer was a low point – rather pulls the rug from their supposed tough stance when you start using ‘pedo’ as a comical insult at your imagined enemies instead of an argument.
        Amanda tried to be civil but her argument was still essentially that I was wrong because of who I was – just said more politely. Better ethically than Hoyt but not better in terms of a reasoned argument.

        Like

      • Mark

        Oh, I also notice that the place where Freer could have made his status as MGC’s Science Guy count was in defending his comments about correlation, and he really wasn’t interested in doing so.
        That’s par for the course with Hoyt unfortunately. Her hair trigger has got (even) worse. I did spot the “pedo phil” thing, and it’s really sad to see them grasping on to VDs coattails without considering that it’s an appalling false accusation to make, and also makes light of a serious issue.
        Amanda is a bit more interesting to watch at least – that tactic of trying to dismiss and close down is pretty much her default one, but as you say she can at least do it without being immediately obnoxious. It really is just nothing more than “please go away and stop disturbing my day” though.

        Like

  4. snowcrash

    Oy vey. I just saw that thread. Nice to see that Freer is still not bothering to identify his assumptions, and continuing his habit of making people who can’t argue away from jump ever tinier hoops (no links!, keep to 2 lines! tell us your real name!) so that he can maintain his manufactured outrage agains disemvowelling.
    Hoyt still hasn’t beat the habit of coming up with nicknames. She must’ve been a joy at secondary school.
    @Phantom – perhaps you would like to understand the distinction between a non-material breach of a NDA (ie premature an incomplete release of an analysis) and a material breach, or a “breaking” of an NDA (release of personally identifiable data, ballots).

    Like

      • thephantom182

        My god man, you really expect anyone to believe you feel sad for Dave Freer? You’re dancing like an organ grinder’s monkey. Suspension of disbelief overwhelmed, microphone in the shot.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Sure, why not. Dave has brains and is capable of critical thinking and the poor guy ended up having to defend a wonky conspiracy theory plus a bunch of supporters who couldn’t manage an argument much more sophisticated that playground insults.
        He got himself stuck in a really awkward position. He wanted to respond to my points but if he did so and I replied he’d have to wade through the confused invective of various commentators. He knew he was on a sticky wicket.

        Like

    • thephantom182

      Crashy said: “@Phantom – perhaps you would like to understand the distinction between a non-material breach of a NDA (ie premature an incomplete release of an analysis) and a material breach, or a “breaking” of an NDA (release of personally identifiable data, ballots).”

      Crashy my dear, perhaps you would like to understand the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.

      Freer’s point is not that skeeve has been conclusively proven beyond any possible doubt. His point is that it -looks- skeevy. And it certainly does. If all in innocence and purity, there is certainly nobody coming forth with any explanations that don’t stink.

      My point, in contrast to his, is that you and Mr. Flopatron et al are very excitedly shouting “nothing to see here!” in front of a crashed UFO with Elvis talking to a cop on the roadside. Is it a real UFO? Is that really Elvis? I don’t know, but it certainly looks interesting. I’m definitely slowing down for a look, and you are trying to cover it up with a towel.

      Your protestations seem a bit suspect, if you don’t mind me saying.

      Quoting Mr. Foley again, “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” Because this is about the public perception of WorldCon and it’s apparent probity, not about making some sort of law case.

      The APPEARANCE of this thing is damaging to WorldCon’s reputation. Which has already been damaged by things like assterisks and the whole fucking awards show farce. Cheering for Noah? Yeah, that looked good. Cheering five times looked five times as good. I was rolling my eyes.

      So why are you arguing against Dave Freer? Do you have insider info that exonerates all involved? Are you in the loop, as it were? Or is this just the usual schoolyard bullshit, taunting the puppies because that’s what everyone else is doing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • snowcrash

        @Phantom

        Regardless of whether it’s a court of public opinion, or one of law, when someone comes in claiming that the onus is on everyone else to disprove his accusations, that person tends to get laughed at, because, as I said, it’s a clear indicator that you have *nothing*.

        Nothing I’ve seen thus far from you refutes that.

        Like

  5. thephantom182

    The Phantom: “My, that car crash looks bad.”

    Crashy: “Prove it!!!!”

    The Phantom: “Are you mental?”

    Crashy: “HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I mock your lack of proof!”

    The Phantom: “Whatever, dude.”

    This is what passes for conversation at Camestros Felpatron’s blog. Seriously, it’s boring Crashy. Get some new material, the Atticus Finch thing is old and busted.

    Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      The Phantom: “My that car crash looks bad – I bet Tor books through an elephant at the car.”
      Crashy: “An elephant? Where was the elephant”
      The Phantom: “So I have to PROVE there was an elephant now? You guys are intolerable”
      Crashy: “Why and how would Tor books throw an elephant at a car?”
      The Phantom: “What is this? A courtroom? Stop the lawyering”
      Crashy: “You don’t have to prove there was an elephant or that Tor books throw it – I would just like some evidence.”
      The Phantom: “Yeah well I may not have the evidence but I’ve years now of experience with Tor throwing elephants at cars!”
      Crashy: “Like when?”
      The Phantom: “Ah! You and your demands for evidence – you are not Atticus Finch.”
      Crashy: “Well just one example of Tor books throwing an elephant at a car?”
      The Phantom: “You are all awful people.”
      Crashy: ” One example of them at least throwing a piglet with crepe paper wings at a car?”
      The Phantom: “The puppies argument about Tor books throwing elephants was really good.”
      Crashy: [sigh]
      Elephant: “Hey, who stuck these crepe paper wings to my butt?”
      PNH: “Ha, ha, ha, my evil plan proceeds apace!”
      The Phantom: “VINDICATED!”
      Crashy: “Gosh Phantom, you were right all along.”

      Like

  6. Mark

    As I was being meta about discussions with puppies, I found Phantom’s argument above of (paraphrased) “why are you even bothered?” quite interesting, because it matches a similar one deployed at MGC (I had “What are you trying to prove? Why are you commenting at all” from Freer, for example), where there’s this sense of shock whenever anyone wanders in and posts a contrary opinion. The idea that things posted openly on the internet might be read by those not in the target audience who might then disagree and even worse write that they disagree seems to bemuse them.
    Even more interesting is “[Do] You have money involved here?” which again pops up at MGC – as if people acting on principles is alien to them.
    Of course, I could be reading too much into it and it’s just the grown up version of “u mad bro?”

    Like

    • thephantom182

      “… there’s this sense of shock whenever anyone wanders in and posts a contrary opinion.”

      No, it’s more the sense of annoyance when I say “Oh look, an appearance of impropriety,” and you say “NO IT’S NOT!!! YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!”

      I say, “Businesses don’t run this way,” and you say “NO ITS NOT!!! YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!11!”

      I say “Look at the…” and you say “SHUT UP!!!!!”

      Your opinion appears to be that Puppies Are Always Wrong, and no discussion is possible. The tedium, it burns.

      So Mark, what -is- there to discuss? What principles are you upholding? What’s your POINT, for fuck sakes?

      I can’t see it, that’s why I asked. You, Crashy and Camestros are acting like a paid clique. Probably aren’t actually paid money, it might only be brownie points, but you catch my drift. I suspect an exchange of value for time/effort.

      And seriously now, why would people at MGC be anything other than hostile? I’m surprised they let you talk at all. I banned clamps/yanamama/whatever from my place and he was actually less full of shit than y’all are today.

      http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2015/02/the-iron-finger-of-deletion.html

      Like

      • Mark

        Phantom, you’re losing track of who said what. You’re paraphrasing what other people have said at me. If you want to address something I’ve actually said, how about returning to the thread where you claimed PNH was the Tor CEO?

        “Your opinion appears to be that Puppies Are Always Wrong, and no discussion is possible.”

        Well, I find puppies are very frequently wrong, but unfortunately discussion is very much possible. I’m having one with you right now for example. If I didn’t want to discuss things with Puppies I would never have posted at MGC or ATH.

        “So Mark, what -is- there to discuss? What principles are you upholding? What’s your POINT, for fuck sakes?”

        If you’ve missed what the principles involved are then I’m not going to re-educate you, but I suspect you can place yourself in my shoes for a few moments and answer your own question, albeit you won’t agree with the answer. The turnaround here is very simple – why does anypup care enough to mess with the Hugos? I do actually know why they claim they care, even though I disagree with the answer. It’s possible to understand your opponent even while disagreeing with him.

        “You, Crashy and Camestros are acting like a paid clique.”

        You’ve never seen more than one person espouse the same view without money or equivalent being involved? I doubt that very much.

        “why would people at MGC be anything other than hostile? I’m surprised they let you talk at all”

        Well, it’s possible to disagree quite fundamentally with someone without going quite so far off the deep end. Of course I’m not going to post a comment that is all sweetness and light – I think they’re wrong! – but I don’t actually go in swearing and making personal attacks as the centerpiece of my argument. Because standards. If people can’t cope with the existence of contrary views in their world then they’re in for a lifetime of disappointment. As for your surprise – well, yes, you make my point for me. If you are confused at anyone engaging with contrary views then your appearance here is a paradox.

        Like

  7. Mark

    In a desperate attempt to remain on-topic, I noticed that Paulk has posted her discussion thread for Short/Novelette/Novella on MGC so I went to see what it had spawned on SP4. Since her post there have been…

    (tension building pause)

    (drumroll)

    …two recs for Declan Finn.

    The man is clearly a fan-mobilising genius.

    Like

      • Mark

        I had another look because the tab was still open. The MGC short fiction post has produced no new recs on SP4 whatsoever! I suppose you could argue the MGC regulars have already done their bit.

        Anyway, along with The Finnster storming along, I spotted a couple of “interesting” voting patterns while looking through the “recent comments”. Over in Fanzine a site called Nuke Mars has had a blip of recommendations, and sure enough they’d been asking their supporters to chime in (https://www.facebook.com/NukeMars/posts/894732317292010) and in Novelette “Pure Attentions” by TR Dillon has had a mysterious rash of recs, although I can’t find any online presence for the author at all so maybe it’s pure coincidence!

        Like

  8. hypnotosov

    SP4 is already looking more and more like a Puppy Primary. I expect that if the SP4 “List” can put at least 3 nominees in 3 categories we will see more of it next year. It’s certainly a worthwhile approach for for C- and D-list authors in the SP sphere to get some buzz (and a glitzy Hugo Award Finalist tag on their books).

    But that’s assuming SP4 actually has an impact. They are getting undercut by Vox Day, and it’s pretty much amateur hour at Sad Puppy Central as far as promotion and organisation is concerned.

    Like