Simplified Voting Strategy

Last year I suggested (followed) a strategy I called High-bar No Award. I still like it but it had some aspects that take awhile to explain.

This is a simpler version that should work fine when presented with some of the “poison pill” Rabid nominations and other shenanigans.

1. If you think the work is really good vote for it regardless.
2. If you think the work is really bad then vote No Award above it regardless.
3. If you think the work is OK/mediocre etc AND it is on a slate then vote No Award above it.
4. If in doubt and the  work was on a slate then vote No Award above it.
5. If it is from Castalia House then vote No Award above it on the grounds that the publishing house is a wing of the Rabids who have vowed to destroy  the Hugos.
6. If rule 1 and 5 conflict then check the skies for airships -you may be in an alternate reality.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Simplified Voting Strategy

  1. I’m still debating my strategy, but on the subject of airships there’s a chance that stuff from There Will Be War is good, if Pournelle edited. I suppose it depends on whether VD got involved in picking the newer stories.

    My default position is to read everything again (insert weary sigh here) but I may suspend that for the totally obvious spite-noms in BRW etc, which I’ve already read at least parts of anyway.

    Like

  2. @Mark, opinions differ of course, but my current methodology is to ignore everything from Castalia and NA them. I have a low threshold for arseholish-ness, and I have a *very* low threshold for institutionalised arseholish-ness. If it, and it’s principles have decided that they will consistently act like this as a publicity-seeking device, I have no qualms about treating their actions with prejudice.

    Like

    1. I’m definitely still thinking about the Castalia issue, as Camestros, you, and others are making good points about rejecting blatant self-promotion.

      Like

    1. I can see how somebody nominated on a Rabid list can say that basically that doesn’t make them somehow affiliated with the Rabids – I was sympathetic to that notion even last year. However, with Castalia a person has signed up (unwittingly perhaps) to be promoted via slate tactics and political controversy and they will become embroiled in that.

      The money that will be gained from any success will be used to promote further vilification of gay and transgender people and used to promote an ideology of racial-supremacy and misogyny.

      In other words that story is going to have to be REALLY, REALLY good 🙂

      Like

  3. I’m No Awarding everything from Castalia on principle that it’s simply a promo for Teddy. Ditto his pals in BRW.

    Everything else gets a fair shot.

    I already know “The Fifth Season” gets my top slot.

    Like

  4. Mr, Camestrosfelapton,

    As someone once said – pups gonna pup. BTW, I see you are ready to bi-furcate the pups. I tend to agree with Scalzi on this and the proof is in the LC pudding that you just served up.

    Greg,

    Once EPH is in place along with 6/4, I think I stop caring about slates. In a post EPH world I wonder if we start seeing multiple slates, particularly of the one shot kind. You might see that in what I consider the minor categories like best editor. Wouldn’t multiple slates have a dilutive effect?

    Like

    1. Yup. I mean I’ll probably still end up in random arguments with Sad Pups here and there just because – but the issue this year isn’t about Sad Puppy narratives etc but a quasi-fascist pushing his vanity publishing house in an attempt to wreck a prestigious award.

      Like

Comments are closed.