Two observations here:



(1) Clearly, the Sad Puppy campaign is all about healthy fannish enthusiasm for particular people and books, not at all about vengeance, score-settling, or a desire to “hurt” “social justice warriors” and “hunt down” the “disease”. They’re all just nice folks who make jokes about puppies.



(2) Reaching out to #GamerGate, inviting them to join Worldcon: special.



To repeat something I said in the lengthy Making Light comment-section discussion of all this, here’s my own take what’s not a big deal, and what really is a big deal.



(1) To the best of my knowledge, the campaign to get a slate of specific people and works onto the Hugo ballot hasn’t done anything that violates the rules.



(2) As anyone over the age of ten knows, it’s generally possible to do things that are dubious, or scummy, or even downright evil, without violating any laws or rules.



(3) Merely running a campaign to get a slate of specific people and works onto the Hugo ballot doesn’t really rise to the level of “evil”, but it’s definitely “dubious” at the very least. Which is to say, it violates a lot of people’s sense of how one ought to behave, and if you do it you’ll incur widespread disapproval. Prepare to deal.



(4) However, running a campaign to get a slate of specific people and works onto the Hugo ballot and reaching out to #Gamergate for support in this…in effect, inviting a bunch of people who traffic in violent threats, intimidation, and “SWATting” to join our community…well, that rises all the way to “downright evil”.



For complicity with this, the Sad Puppy campaign deserves our comprehensive rejection.

Does the desire to expand fandom mean we have to welcome every imaginable kind of person? I think a moment's reflection reveals that no, we do not. The SF convention that finds itself sharing a hotel with the International Association of Cheerful Child-rapers can probably be excused for not inviting them to come visit the con suite. Likewise, many people, me included, think that #Gamergate is an association of terrible human beings that we don't want to see joining us.

At this point, one has to wonder if the Toad of (formerly) Tor is a serious glutton for punishment , as well as, obviously, being the conventional sort.Voting No Award for everything... wow, that's such an astonishing and totally unexpected tactic! Who could ever have possibly anticipated THAT? Certainly not these dreadful people who are, I am reliably informed, "downright evil". Now, I wonder what would be more evil, some perfectly reasonable works from the likes of John C. Wright and Jim Butcher winning an award or two, or leaving the Hugo Awards an awardless smoking ruin?Meanwhile, Tor Books Senior Editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden launches his own attack on #GamerGate (shakes head) Do these people know how to do anything but double-down?

Labels: #GamerGate, Hugo Award