Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Hugo Gernsback Would Have Loved This

I always adore it when SJWs cry from the heart, "you must trust me!  It's the rules!"

Two of Queen Toadina's minions are given early access to EPH for assessment.  But don't worry puppy fans.  There is no possible way that the CHORF-in-chief has been given access to the results.

From the Mad Genius club;

Where Jameson Quinn – one of the Making Light cabal plotting to institute EPH announces that he and Bruce Schneier have been given the anonymized data, and tested it. Incidentally (because he’s not too bright, it seems) he announces that there is a weak correlation between the non-puppy nominations and what was nominated, but that this was much stronger in the puppies and what they nominated. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that, without knowing the ‘secret slates’ Quinn and Schneier could not separate voters for those cabals from other voters. So: if a ‘weak’ correlation shows up with ALL of the data, there is a high probability that indeed, there was secret concert voting by some. After all, the pattern of ‘you nominate mine, I’ll nominate yours’ is well known and documented from the Nebula Awards, before they anonymized that nomination process. It may well still go on, but it is harder to see. Many of the same authors come up in Hugo nominations, which should be unlikely. The one is supposed to be a peer award, the other a fan award.

Which leads us to: how did Quinn and Schneier get data which was not available to everyone because giving it to anyone breached voter confidentiality and privacy rules? I don’t know either from Adam  — but Quinn & Schneier came from a group which has a questionable reputation, has a financial interest in the outcome of the Hugos. Unless they are babes-in-wood those who provided the data to Quinn and Schneier knew that they were not people who could be considered neutral by a substantial number of the people whose data they were handing over. The two ‘researchers’ also knew full well they were not considered neutral or trusted: Quinn posts on File 770, another well-known anti-puppy site.

As previously announced, it was determined that the data was unable to be sufficiently anonymized for a general release, so the researchers were provided data under a non-disclosure agreement.”

I see then. A non-disclosure agreement… with a pair of ‘researchers’ from a partisan group with a questionable reputation and a financial interest.

The one thing the Hugo's had going for them was earned integrity of the process. There had been several authors who had questioned it in the past.  After Sad Puppies Two, Larry Corriea himself had come out and said in effect, 'if nothing else Sad Puppies has been an effective audit of the system. The Hugo's system is honest'. 

Now we have a new system being put in place in secret and two of the testers are known to be partisan's of Tor Books. 

This Puppy has zero doubt in his mind that the Nielsen-Hayden's don't already have this data.  It was probably passed along as soon as the testers got it.

No comments: