"By the definition you're using, all candidates are slates."
Absolutely not. So absolutely not that I can't even imagine how you could get that impression.
"The fundamental issue .. isn't that it's a slate .. but that's just what makes it break the nomination rules."
The breaking of the rules is what makes this the fundamental issue. That it's not a technical legal violation is a distinction that only the Puppies themselves think has any saving grace.
"The fundamental issue is that it's a campaign."
That's a necessary condition for the list to have been a slate. If someone publishes his complete list of personal nominations but doesn't try to campaign for it, it's not a slate.
That it's a campaign by itself, without it being a slate, is not the fundamental issue. There have been campaigns for Hugo nominations before now and, with one only partial exception, they never aroused significant fuss. That's because they focused on persuading people already likely to vote to focus their nominations on one candidate whom they already knew and liked. (TNH's first Fan Writer nomination in 1984 was campaigned for this way.)
The only major fuss over a campaign was the one which got one of L. Ron Hubbard's bricks on Best Novel in 1987. That was because it was focused on recruiting a bunch of outside voters who'd mechanically nominate it. But it was not a slate, and the fuss was nowhere near as great as this. The incident was sufficiently minor, and it failed badly enough, that no action was then taken to prevent a recurrence.
"The response is far too diverse and broad for it to be the result of any of the campaigns"
That doesn't make it not a counter-slate. A successful campaign in real-world politics will be diverse, and it will include votes from people who are not primarily motivated by the campaigning. What the "No Award" campaign isn't is a conspiracy.
"the existing meme that campaigning threats to the Hugos have to be responded to by No Award, as has been true for over 25 years."
I know of no such existing meme, and I've been following the Hugos for a lot more than 25 years. The only "threat" to the Hugos of this kind was the aforementioned Hubbard. That was more than 25 years ago, and the response to it was not "No Award" but the other four, more deserving nominees. Traditionally, "No Award" is a response to a nominee list which sucked because there was nothing good out there, not to a threat caused by campaigning. It's also worth noting that this, too, has not been a notable problem for a lot more than 25 years.
" It assumes that campaigns have infinite power -- rather than, as any political group has, just the power to abuse holes in the rules."
It does not assume infinite power. It assumes exactly what you say it does, the power to abuse holes in the rules. What you can't do is plug all the holes, not without destroying the award. You can plug this particular hole. You can make it harder to exploit other holes. But there will always be other holes that can be exploited. The small numbers of the Puppies is not relevant: they're a large enough number in this polity, even though they're a minority. (Check out the history of the so-called Bolsheviks.) The Puppies can always give up trying, but if they don't - and Vox sure doesn't sound as if he intends to give up - you're reduced to plugging holes every time one is exploited. That gives the impression that it's the rule-makers who are gaming the system, and is one particular case of "destroying the award."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-04-21 06:09 pm (UTC)Absolutely not. So absolutely not that I can't even imagine how you could get that impression.
"The fundamental issue .. isn't that it's a slate .. but that's just what makes it break the nomination rules."
The breaking of the rules is what makes this the fundamental issue. That it's not a technical legal violation is a distinction that only the Puppies themselves think has any saving grace.
"The fundamental issue is that it's a campaign."
That's a necessary condition for the list to have been a slate. If someone publishes his complete list of personal nominations but doesn't try to campaign for it, it's not a slate.
That it's a campaign by itself, without it being a slate, is not the fundamental issue. There have been campaigns for Hugo nominations before now and, with one only partial exception, they never aroused significant fuss. That's because they focused on persuading people already likely to vote to focus their nominations on one candidate whom they already knew and liked. (TNH's first Fan Writer nomination in 1984 was campaigned for this way.)
The only major fuss over a campaign was the one which got one of L. Ron Hubbard's bricks on Best Novel in 1987. That was because it was focused on recruiting a bunch of outside voters who'd mechanically nominate it. But it was not a slate, and the fuss was nowhere near as great as this. The incident was sufficiently minor, and it failed badly enough, that no action was then taken to prevent a recurrence.
"The response is far too diverse and broad for it to be the result of any of the campaigns"
That doesn't make it not a counter-slate. A successful campaign in real-world politics will be diverse, and it will include votes from people who are not primarily motivated by the campaigning. What the "No Award" campaign isn't is a conspiracy.
"the existing meme that campaigning threats to the Hugos have to be responded to by No Award, as has been true for over 25 years."
I know of no such existing meme, and I've been following the Hugos for a lot more than 25 years. The only "threat" to the Hugos of this kind was the aforementioned Hubbard. That was more than 25 years ago, and the response to it was not "No Award" but the other four, more deserving nominees. Traditionally, "No Award" is a response to a nominee list which sucked because there was nothing good out there, not to a threat caused by campaigning. It's also worth noting that this, too, has not been a notable problem for a lot more than 25 years.
" It assumes that campaigns have infinite power -- rather than, as any political group has, just the power to abuse holes in the rules."
It does not assume infinite power. It assumes exactly what you say it does, the power to abuse holes in the rules. What you can't do is plug all the holes, not without destroying the award. You can plug this particular hole. You can make it harder to exploit other holes. But there will always be other holes that can be exploited. The small numbers of the Puppies is not relevant: they're a large enough number in this polity, even though they're a minority. (Check out the history of the so-called Bolsheviks.) The Puppies can always give up trying, but if they don't - and Vox sure doesn't sound as if he intends to give up - you're reduced to plugging holes every time one is exploited. That gives the impression that it's the rule-makers who are gaming the system, and is one particular case of "destroying the award."