Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Forums

Except that that's a hugely false equivalency, and the Sad Puppies know it, but they plaster it everywhere to justify their bad behavior, in the hopes that the people who see it will swallow it whole, and won't take the time and effort to go check for themselves.

Scalzi does three Awards Eligibility posts every year. The first is his own eligible works (and he started doing this way back when, because he was inundated with requests from fans for the information, as he would be every year if he didn't post it):
The 2015 Awards Consideration Post

He also, every year, provides an open thread for other creators (writers, artists, bloggers, whatever) to post a link to examples of their own work:
SF/F Authors/Editors/Artists/Fan Creators 2015 Award Awareness Post

And he also, every year, provides an open thread for fans to post a link to examples of work they really like (writing, art, blogs, jewelry, whatever)
The 2015 SF/F Fans Award Recommendation Thread

Doesn't look much "log-rolling", does it?

Here's Charles Stross' 2014 post. He lists 1 novel, and 1 novella:
Because people keep asking me...

Here's Stross' 2015 post. He mentions 1 novel -- but doesn't even give its title:
Sitrep

That doesn't bear much resemblance to "log-rolling", either.

Here's Tor.com's 2015 post. They list 4 Novellas, 18 Novelettes, and 52 Short Stories. Given that nominators are only allowed 5 entries per category, it's pretty hard to see this as an attempt at nomination ballot-stuffing:
Tor.com’s Hugo and Nebula-Eligible Fiction from 2014

I couldn't find a Novel eligibility listing from Tor Books -- but that's hardly surprising, given the list for 2014 from isfDB (and this doesn't even include the 2014 novels from Tor subsidiaries).

A lot of authors posts lists of their eligible works for the past year. I, for one, really appreciate it -- because I often can't remember if something I read a year ago was published in that year, or the year before, and because I read so many novels (last year it was around 135) that while I try to take note of the best ones for nomination use later, I don't always remember to do so.

A lot of fans also post lists of their preferences (hey, I even did that at an earlier point in this thread) -- but I would hope you agree that my post bears no resemblance to "I voted for these, now you go out and vote for the same ones, too!", and I've never seen another fan list that comes even close to saying something like that, either. 

Now, compare-and-contrast that to the Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies lists, which are deliberately designed and promoted to be nominated as a slate. (I won't link to them, but if you Google each of those phrases, you'll find the lists and their accompanying exhortations easily enough. Though I don't recommend it, if you wish to keep your dinner in your stomach where it belongs.)

Sad/Rabid Puppies supporters have been openly admitting all over the internet that the intent is to completely fill the nomination slate with their selected entries and "take back" the Hugos from whatever sinister cabal their paranoid minds have conjured up.

And yes, if they continue to do this for several years, it will indeed continue to devalue the Hugo Awards to the point where they are meaningless. One highly-esteemed author of my acquaintance (whose books are the kind the Sad Puppies claim to support) told me "I'm glad I got my Hugos back when they still meant something."

If you've already got a membership, I hope you'll still vote -- if only to make plain your disgust with the way that any slate, regardless of the politics or motivation behind it, ruins the awards. That's what I intend to do.

I love the way that WWEnd has helped me to expand on my reading experience, especially with the challenges to read more books by and featuring women and LGBTQ. Sure, I've encountered what were, for me, a few "duds" -- but that has always been the case, and I've encountered way more new authors whose works I genuinely enjoy -- and whose works have undoubtedly made me a better, wiser person for reading them.

And I really appreciate the genuineness and thoughtfulness of the members here who post reviews. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but the added perspective is hugely helpful. I love that the people here are all about reading the books -- ALL THE BOOKS -- and that everyone leaves their personal aggro at the door when they log in.

This place is like the anti-Facebook. High-quality content and discussion, non-existent levels of aggro.

That's what's most upsetting to me -- that they've turned something which I used to use as a Reading Guide (the Hugo Nomination longlist) into something that's less than helpful or meaningful, possibly next to worthless.

I've no doubt that in the past there were tiny little groups who banded together to try to get a work on the ballot. But this utter repudiation of integrity, of good-faith, of letting the majority preference percolate its way to the top, is just disappointing and disgusting.

And I'm not at all impressed by the people who are saying, "Hey, it's nothing to do with me!", but who are quite willing to ride the SP coattails to a Hugo nomination and maybe even a win.

All we can do is hope that at some point, the nasty trolls will get bored, and wander off.

Do you read a fair bit of SFF and would like to be able to express your opinions on what you read, in terms of nominating and voting for the Hugo Awards, but have not been able to afford to do so?

Because of the current concern that the Hugo process is too insular, a bunch of SFF fans have generously offered to provide supporting memberships in order to broaden the community of nominator/voters. These memberships include the right to vote this year (and the voter's packet of full or partial copies of nominated works) and the right to nominate (but not vote) next year.

The only requirement is that you be someone who reads and enjoyes SFF.

If you'd love to participate but money has been holding you back, you can find the entry form here .

Badseedgirl, there are close to 100 free supporting memberships for this year made available by fans who care, for anyone who loves SFF. I encourage you to try asking for one. If you haven't bought one already, you can find the entry form here .

Worldcon bylaws require that the Hugos be awarded (though a ceremony is not a requirement).

The Hugo Admin will now be going to the next entries on the nominating ballot with the most votes, asking if they'd accept being on the voting ballot... and possibly the next, and the next, and the next... I don't envy the poor guy. And these people will now be facing the heartbreaking knowledge that if the Puppies hadn't decide to destroy the process, they'd have had a legitimate Hugo nomination this year.

It's just heart-rending that so many good people are ending up as collateral damage to a malicious, childish tantrum.