I’ve been reading any number of threads discussing the Hugo fiasco this year and I have to say that I think certain parties have played right into the hands of the group that orchestrated a takeover of the ballot because many of the conversations have devolved into talking about voting for “those types of people.”
That’s not my issue with this whole thing.
My issue with this year’s Hugos is this: A small group of people set out to fill every single slot on the ballot.
I don’t care what those people’s politics are. I don’t care that they’re raging -ists. I care that they took all other seats at the table away and that by doing so they tarnished the award and all nominees for the year.
I find this sad. Because I suspect that they were clever enough to rope in a few of their friends who would’ve legitimately been nominated this year. And now those nominees are likely to be deprived of an award they in fact would’ve earned in a fair competition.
An award that I can’t in good conscience vote that they receive. Because I don’t believe in rewarding dominating, bullying behavior.
And the few nominees who squeaked through somehow? Well, how would you feel if you knew that you were the only person in the category who wasn’t nominated by a slate and were therefore the only option some people saw as an acceptable vote? That award is just as tarnished.
I have signed up for a membership so I can vote this year. And the more I look at this, the more I think I may vote No Award first for all categories and then rank all titles below that.
I think that’s the only choice because the slate that dominated the ballot broke the entire thing and anyone receiving an award will result in that group saying, “See, you’re all biased against us.”
I’m not biased against them for their beliefs, their associations, or the quality of their writing. I’m opposed to people who manipulate a process for their own benefit. And I believe in doing whatever I can to prevent them from receiving those benefits and continuing those destructive behaviors.