I’d like to start by congratulating Kate Paulk on her magnificent effort in organizing and collating the SAD PUPPIES 4 LIST.

This is how you conduct a professional, non-partisan job. I have deliberately stayed un-involved (I didn’t even post my own votes) simply because that could be mis-construed as trying to influence the vote. After all, I’m the guy who has said publishers and authors should not vote in a fan award. I think lobbying for votes is pretty well below the bar, let alone introducing captive votes.

That doesn’t mean I don’t support Kate, and didn’t want readers to go and vote for works they enjoyed. It just means I was willing to step back, show no favoritism… and be seen to do so. You know, like the WorldCon organizers and the Hugo Committee…

Oh. Wait…

Well, like anyone who values their reputation for honesty, integrity and fair play would do.

The Puppy Kickers have, needless to say, responded with decorum and decency. And when idiots among their ranks spouted obvious nonsense (we all have our idiots) being sensible reasonable folk the rest spoke up, apologized for the jackasses, and allowed free debate among their vastly socio-politically non-uniform ranks, with tolerance and generosity abounding…

Oh. Wait… (yes. A few of them made grudging concessions. But their ‘friends’ soon sorted that out.)

Never mind. There was always that role model, John Scalzi, informed and generous as ever, welcoming the democratization of compiling a recommended list by readers in a transparent, open process.

I would not willingly participate on an award nomination slate;

If I’m on such a slate it’s without my consent;

Those who have put me or my work on such a slate should remove me from it;

If they won’t remove me, or anyone who asks to be removed, they’re likely assholes;

And maybe you should factor that in when thinking about them and their motives.

That about sums it up.”

And when asked if that made Locus a bunch of assholes, because they do not ask consent – Johnny informed us that Locus’s recommend list is not a stealth slate (even though it is remarkably predictive. Strange that.).

So let me get this straight, John. Locus, using a group of industry insiders, with vested interests, who compose their list in secret in collusion with each other…. ISN’T ‘a slate’. But an open, transparent democratic vote by the public IS ‘a slate’.

And the people who put John on that ‘slate’ (because it is a simple, open, transparent count of votes, the voters are the people who put you there, John) – are, according to John Scalzi, assholes. So: following logically: In other words John says his readers, readers that liked his work and voted for it, are assholes. Ah, got it! This is what I’m doing wrong. I like my readers, and I try to avoid insulting them even if I’d rather they didn’t vote for me. If that’s what it takes, count me out. But I’m sure no publisher faced with an author who regarded his or her readers as assholes would offer that author a multi-million dollar contract. Why that would imply they agreed that readers were assholes. Couldn’t happen! No one would do that surely?

Oh. Wait…

Or we have the amusing confusion of Cat Valente, who was demanding the Sad Pups remove her from their ‘slate’. She knew it was a slate and that they were going ask her permission (just like Locus does (Oh. wait…) because she got her information from the “excellent coverage” which she recommends. I see. Now correct me if I have this wrong, but wasn’t one the principal whines that slate or block voters who didn’t think for themselves, and voted for works they hadn’t actually read, on the say so of an orchestrator who had something to gain? (Which, we may point out is something the Sad Puppies have repeatedly, for years, asked people NOT to do). But that’s completely different from reading the ‘excellent coverage’ of an orchestrator who has something to gain, instead of actually reading what the Sad Puppies say, and thinking for yourself…

Oh. Wait…

Of course several thousand people ‘voted slate’ let File 770 and the like do their thinking for them, never bothered to read anything on offer, and voted for ‘No Award’. But I am sure that’s different. Oh. Wait…

Now, I’m no fan of Valente’s. We have nothing in common, come from opposite ends of the human continuum. Our writing reflects this. Her world would kill me, and my world would kill her. I have read one of her works, which is more than she ever did of mine, I’d guess. Her writing is not to my taste — but some people do like that sort of thing. Consider this: If only works I did like appeared on the nomination list, then there’d be nothing for people like Valente. They too SHOULD have something they’d like to vote for.

Of course the converse should also apply. I wonder if Cat Valente could get her head around that concept? I suppose she did figure that calling her fans assholes was less-than-charming, so who knows? But then she’s in a ‘world according to File 770’ that somehow concludes that the heroes in our books are all white heterosexual men…

Oh. Wait… Cat. Maybe before you make an idiot of yourself in public by eagerly believing anything you read on File 770… (Mike Glyer is extremely skilled – at selective quotes, and is very much a beneficiary of the status quo.) Well, look at Sarah Hoyt’s lead characters, Larry Correia’s lead characters and even mine. Their politics may differ from your ideal – but that’s actually all you could complain about. You know, your head might indeed explode if you looked at Brad Torgersen’s original list of recommendations last year. Had he not asked, had the ‘Requires Hate’ model of intimidating people into a fear of association not worked… and the vote attained the same Puppy proportions 2015 would have been the most gender, orientation, and color diverse year in the history of the Hugos, full of new entrants. But, as Laura Mixon illustrated with her post on ‘Requires Hate’, bullying, whisper campaigns, exclusion and intimidation worked very well… on women and minorities of a certain political flavor. What Mixon never figured out – or didn’t want to figure out — ‘Requires Hate’ tried the same crap with people who weren’t women, gay or not white, or not of her political flavor. She tried it on us at MGC as ‘Winterfox’. We laughed at her, and ignored her histrionics and nastiness. It’s just more File 770 and the Straw Puppies, and we’re used to it. So lot of the ‘inclusion’ got bullied out before the list got off the ground. And that just left those who didn’t care what the doctrine police liked. And that is behind the ‘no ask’ policy – the same as Locus and others. We’d love to be better than them, but unfortunately, the bullying level is such that it is impossible.

I don’t know if Cat Valente can get her head around that.

It comes under the heading ‘I don’t really care.’

We’ll see if anyone else does when the noms come out.

If one wants to bother to vote. If you believe that nomination exercise credible and worthwhile.

I must admit I haven’t yet, and don’t know if I can be bothered to do so. You know, as I put it before, my support for World Con and the Hugos is rather like one’s support for cousin Hugo who has turned into a hopeless drunk, in the process of losing everything because of his life choices. You remember him as a nice guy, once. Funny, compassionate, full of promise and potential, rather than the vicious drunk and petty thief he is now. For the sake of what he once was, you still try and help him, even though you know it’s probably fruitless and he’ll probably steal from you too. But eventually, you just have to walk away, because he has to want to change. And I’m not seeing that.

Kate has put a huge amount of work into the Sad Pups 4 list, and she’s attending. A good reason – possibly the only good reason – for attending MACII is to stand behind her. She doesn’t need anyone (Kate makes me look soft), but might like the company. There will, I believe, be a Sad Pups party. It’s not a ‘safe space’ but a con party, just like any other con party.

I wrote to the Hugo committee and the chairs of Mid Americon II quite a long time ago asking why we should vote in the noms and why we should attend their con.

Thank you for informing me that Hugo Nominations are open. Actually, I am aware of this. So are the 10 800 odd page views who read my post on how you handed my – and other voters — voting records over to a pair of so-called ‘researchers’ – who are based within a partisan group which has a financial interest in the outcome of the award( https://madgeniusclub.com/2016/02/15/on-teachers-kids-and-hugos/ ). You handed the data over to a group which is implicated in previous wrongdoings and manipulation ( https://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/13/nostradumbass-and-madame-bugblatterfatski/ ). And you handed it over to them, and only them, in secret, having refused to make them available to the public, as they could not be adequately anonymized. The post was widely echoed, so I think the question you need to answer for about 20 000 possible voters: why should we bother? If you’ll behave in this fashion in this instance, what else are you doing to tilt the field that we don’t know about? How much further will you go?

Why should we bother to give money, legitimacy and credibility to your process by participating?

What concrete steps are you going to take to reassure voters that you’re not just the marketing arm of Tor books? Not empty platitudes, excuses, evasions or your word – which, by handing over this data, and not following up on Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s pre-knowledge of the nominations last year – you’ve established is near worthless, but public actions. Perhaps you’d like to start by investigating quite how Patrick Nielsen Hayden knew the embargoed results in advance, and dealing appropriately and publicly with all the parties concerned, so we know you’re not actually favoring them.

Please pass on to your so-called researchers – if they are unaware – that I do not consent for them to use my data in any way, shape or form. It was obtained without my knowledge, without my consent and certainly without my approval. As such it breaches the ethical requirements of most academic institutions and all reputable journals. I consider your handing it to them – or accessing it yourselves for any purpose but the voting — a complete betrayal of trust. I hope you will take appropriate and public action to restore that trust.

On another matter entirely, and addressed at the general MidAmeriCon II administrators. I have a substantial number of readers within easy driving distance of your Con. Those of my friends, fans and readers who went had an extremely unpleasant and unwelcoming experience at Sasquan – for which David Gerrold with the co-operation of some of the Con organizers were responsible. Would you like to tell me, so I can tell them, why MAC II will be different, and worth spending money on, and why they should attend or support? I think it is worth pointing out that your Hugo Administrators have so far made this very much less likely.

It is fair to point out that I intend to publish this letter, and your reply. Or the fact that did not reply.

Eventually, David McCarty did reply: He did ask that I publish the entire letter – which, as I’m not ‘selective quotes’ Glyer, I have.

Here is the unfisked reply – my fisked reply is below. This is inserted because Mr Glyer – who has never quoted the entire document if he could find something nasty to select – was moaning and squirming that I didn’t honor McCarty request. I am therefore doing so with the request that Glyer only quotes me in full in future. Let’s see how honorable Glyer is. Any bets?

Mr Freer,

With the passage of the EPH proposal at the Sasquan business meeting, the members of WSFS began the process of substantially altering the method for selecting Hugo finalists. The method being proposed is novel. There is no prior example to let the members of WSFS understand completely how this method might operate when used in the Hugo awards. As such, it was imperative that EPH be tested with meaningful data and those results reported to the next business meeting at MidAmeriCon II.

To accomplish this, Sasquan made its Hugo nominating data available to MidAmeriCon II for testing. MidAmeriCon II provided access to two researchers (Bruce Schneier and Jameson Quinn) and worked collaboratively with them to test the counting method. The data was anonymized prior to it being shared for testing. A random key was assigned to the voter, and this key was reset to a new value in each category, so a voter who participated in six categories was given six unique keys. The data was also normalized to standardize choices and further anonymize the ballot data. The researchers were given the data under an NDA, and while some analysis results were released prematurely, the NDA was not broken, as no voter data was shared by them. The researchers’ technical paper is under academic review. A more complete report to the business meeting will be made public later this spring or early summer.

The particulars of handling the privacy and secrecy of the Hugo nominators and voters is a responsibility handed each year to the Hugo subcommittee of each year’s Worldcon. Additionally that team is charged with protecting the interest and the integrity of the Hugos. We take these responsibilities very seriously.

I can assure you that neither we, nor the administrators of the Sasquan Hugos, contacted the employees of Tor, or any other publisher, prior to the release of the Sasquan final ballot, except to the extent that we will attempt to contact all nominees, and such contacts may be through their publisher, in the cases where the individual nominees have no other published contact information. This may allow a publisher to know some works that have qualified for the final ballot, but only the works published by that house, and only to the extent that we do not have any other contact information.

MidAmeriCon II welcomes all fans, as exemplified in our code of conduct, available at http://midamericon2.org/policies/code-of-conduct/. Each Worldcon’s convention committee and staff is unique to that Worldcon, and experiences at Sasquan should not be assumed to be relevant to MidAmeriCon II.

I understand your inclination to publish my response publicly, I would only ask that you publish the response in full if you do

Dave McCarty – Hugo Administrator

MidAmeriCon II

Fisked version.

My comments are in bold. Seldom has anyone given me so much rope to hang themselves with. And no. They will do nothing, take no concrete action, and take no steps at all. But you can have your fill of worthless platitudes.

Mr Freer

With the passage of the EPH proposal at the Sasquan business meeting, the members of WSFS began the process of substantially altering the method for selecting Hugo finalists.

For which they have no responsibility in 2016 at all. The vote needs to be ratified and will only be something the 2017 Hugo committee will have to implement IF it is. The committees are separate, so we’re told. This one has nothing at all to do with it. Should in no way be involved. In fact is obliged NOT to be involved, to be neutral.



The method being proposed is novel.

Yes, I think they found it in one.

There is no prior example to let the members of WSFS understand completely how this method might operate when used in the Hugo awards.

It’s none of their business. If the business meeting decides and votes and ratifies they want the votes divided in three and strapped to cannon-shells, the members of WSFS have no need to understand. They just have to do it.

As such, it was imperative that EPH be tested with meaningful data and those results reported to the next business meeting at MidAmeriCon II.

No, it wasn’t imperative. There is no obligation at all. The opposite is true. One partisan group decided to push this issue. The administrators had, in fact, a strict duty to be seen as neutral. I honestly don’t care one way or the other – any moderately competent mathematician can work out the effect – which once again, is no-one’s business. There would be a minor buffering effect on one block-vote, next to none on two, and it would be irrelevant on three. By increasing the complexity and reducing transparency cheating is ALWAYS made easier. Should testing actually be required, which it wasn’t, various programs exist for generating data for the specific purpose. These are good enough for banks and stock exchanges. But of course a tiny teeny little voting procedure like this is more complicated. Oh. Wait…

It isn’t. What the actual data does is make it possible to pick up collusion (which is why I wanted it). It also makes predictive cheating easier. But no one involved has a commercial or social status interest… Oh. Wait…

To accomplish this, Sasquan made its Hugo nominating data available to MidAmeriCon II for testing. MidAmeriCon II provided access to two researchers (Bruce Schneier and Jameson Quinn)

In secret. Two ‘researchers’ who had worked within and from ‘Making Light’ – a site run and controlled for the benefit of a commercially interested party. Also a group associated with wrongdoing in prior Hugo awards – the group in which Patrick Nielsen Hayden had displayed foreknowledge of the embargoed results, which he had no legitimate reason to know. Also a strongly partisan group.

and worked collaboratively with them to test the counting method.

So you provided resources to a partisan group. That is a completely neutral act and a service you made available to others… Oh. Wait… no, you refused. You said it could not be anonymized adequately, and they couldn’t have the data, let alone help.

The data was anonymized prior to it being shared for testing. A random key was assigned to the voter, and this key was reset to a new value in each category, so a voter who participated in six categories was given six unique keys. The data was also normalized to standardize choices and further anonymize the ballot data.

And of course this was done in the full glare of public awareness, notifying the people whose data you gave out… Oh. Wait. It was done in secret. After the data had been refused to them at the 2015 business meeting.

But I’m sure it was all with proper procedures, independent witness… Oh. Wait…

The researchers were given the data under an NDA, and while some analysis results were released prematurely, the NDA was not broken, as no voter data was shared by them.

So either they needed a NDA because the data was not anonymized – or they didn’t. Voter data would include anything derived from that data. So yes. Their NDA was breached. It was breached to highly partisan group. Did you take any steps? Take any action? This BTW is a good point to point out that Jameson Quinn’s little bragging session to File 770 invoked a claim that weak correlation existed in the data for other groups but that it was nothing like as strong as for the puppies. Now, that is actually impossible to derive, IF the data is anonymized as above. You could yes, venture a guess with a degree of probability as to a correlation, by using the puppy lists. But with each category a further degree of uncertainty is introduced. You of course CAN’T derive the same across the non-puppy block votes because you don’t know what categories they operated in, or what they were for. So: basically either Quinn… shall we say… stretched the truth. Or Hugo administrators did.

The researchers’ technical paper is under academic review.

And if anyone can point me Jameson Quinn’s academic institution, I will lodge an ethics complaint. I will certainly challenge any paper and for that I will need full access to the raw data. Science needs standards, and rewarding wrongdoing makes it happen again.

A more complete report to the business meeting will be made public later this spring or early summer. Only if you wish to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that you took sides in an issue that was not ratified, that you had no business interfering in. That’s your choice: are you neutral and trustworthy? Or are you partisan and not trustworthy? Do the voters reward unethical behavior? Or is it suddenly Okay when it is their side? It will be interesting to see if the ‘we have to punish the puppies for unethical behavior’ crowd will have the same standards for their own pets. But they’ve always done so in the past. Oh. Wait…

The particulars of handling the privacy and secrecy of the Hugo nominators and voters is a responsibility handed each year to the Hugo subcommittee of each year’s Worldcon. Additionally that team is charged with protecting the interest and the integrity of the Hugos. We take these responsibilities very seriously.

So: taking these responsibilities very seriously: that means naturally that you need to be seen to be neutral, above suspicion, not cutting secret sweet-heart co-operation with people from partisan groups with questionable ‘inside knowledge’ and commercial connections. People who claimed to take those responsibilities very seriously would NEVER do things like that, because it’s not just good enough to tell people you take it seriously, you actually have to make sure you are perceived as that. Your team did that, and refused to do anything that could possibly be considered ‘dodgy’ by anyone. Otherwise you’re not taking it seriously. Oh. Wait…

I can assure you that neither we, nor the administrators of the Sasquan Hugos, contacted the employees of Tor, or any other publisher, prior to the release of the Sasquan final ballot, except to the extent that we will attempt to contact all nominees, and such contacts may be through their publisher, in the cases where the individual nominees have no other published contact information. This may allow a publisher to know some works that have qualified for the final ballot, but only the works published by that house, and only to the extent that we do not have any other contact information.

I am so relieved to hear that! So of course you’ll be taking steps to deal with the individuals implicated in what really can only be secret block voting collusion (as that is the only way possible then for this foreknowledge. He knew who to ask, and they were willing to tell him, and knew that no one else could possibly have won except the puppy nominees. If we accept your word (and I must admit the way took your responsibility very seriously does make it hard) that is the only alternative. I wonder what those steps will be to restore credibility? Oh. Wait… did you say “Guest of Honor”?

MidAmeriCon II welcomes all fans, as exemplified in our code of conduct, available at http://midamericon2.org/policies/code-of-conduct/. Each Worldcon’s convention committee and staff is unique to that Worldcon, and experiences at Sasquan should not be assumed to be relevant to MidAmeriCon II.

Phew! Thank heavens! A code of conduct! Now if only Sasquan had had a code of conduct it would have been a joy… oh. Wait…

And committee staff is unique to that Worldcon! Fantastic. Oh. Wait… Who was this other Dave McCarty at Sasquan?

I understand your inclination to publish my response publicly, I would only ask that you publish the response in full if you do.

I have.

—

Dave McCarty – Hugo Administrator

MidAmeriCon II

For what it is worth, I still think Kate is worthy of your support at the con. I may as well vote in nominations. I urge those who vote to have read work and to vote on merit. But I cannot, on the basis of their conduct so far, recommend the con. Perhaps rather spend the money on books from your favorite authors.