[ SECRET POST #3030 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3030 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This all makes me sad. I'm not that into science fiction, but I'm a lit geek so I've sort of followed it after I saw GRRM posting about it on LJ. I'm not sure how it should all play out, but I feel bad about letting the sad puppies win this one. I'm pro having no winners this year and a tightening of rules, because I have no doubt if they win they'll pull the same shit next year. I know GRRM makes a point when he says if there's no winners the sad puppies will feel like they've made a point. But on the other hand why let a bunch of homophobic MRA's types get all these awards and false praise? This is the most damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

John Scalzi is relevant here:

"[H]e’s the sort of person for whom any scenario will be seen as a victory condition; if he were to be set on fire and pushed in front of a speeding train, he would cackle about how this was exactly what he had planned right up until the moment of impact turned him into flaming bits of kibble . . . Fuck that dude. If everything is a victory condition for him — and it is — then worrying about what he’s going to do is sort of pointless. What is he going to do? Why, declare victory! Regardless! So you might as well do what you want. And if that means voting “No Award” in the categories where there are only Puppy nominees, then by all means follow your joy. Yes, he’ll say that’s what he planned all along. You could open a can of peas and he would maintain that you’re doing exactly what he wanted. He wants you to see him as a mastermind, rather than as a general failure whose only successes lie in being terrible to other people, and encouraging others to be the same."

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/20/keeping-up-with-the-hugos-42015/

Re: OP

[esteefee]

I've been following this and yeah, I agree. I'm going to vote NO AWARD for the cats that have been twisted by the slates.

And hopefully by next year they will have fixed the slate problem by using reweighted approval voting (RAV) to determine nominations (like they're talking about).

Re: OP

[were_lemur]

Even if they vote to do something to change the rules of voting this year, it has to be ratified NEXT year. So the soonest the new rules would take effect would be 2017.