tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29524018.post537915341897765018..comments2024-01-22T19:10:23.007-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Book: A Brief Review of PuppygateWill McLeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14685409952186547597noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29524018.post-66977162377730587382015-07-18T03:04:25.102-05:002015-07-18T03:04:25.102-05:00Pedro,
The narrative about Torgersen claiming tha...Pedro,<br /><br />The narrative about Torgersen claiming that SP3 was compiled democratically and transparently started on 16 April, when he claimed that it had been compiled democratically and transparently.<br /><br />From https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/we-are-not-rabid/<br /><br />The objectives of Sad Puppies 3 have been simple and consistent:<br /><br />● Use the democratic selection system of the Hugo awards.<br />● No “quiet” logrolling. Make it transparent.<br />[plus four other points]<br /><br />Now, most readers would look at that and think that this is a claim that the SP3 process was democratic, like the Hugo awards themselves are, and transparent.<br /><br />It's pretty clear that the SP3 process is deficient on both grounds.Nicholas Whytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13065102837531945315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29524018.post-31371495511832534362015-06-20T06:35:33.318-05:002015-06-20T06:35:33.318-05:00I'm puzzled by some people's retroactive i...I'm puzzled by some people's retroactive insistence on calling for a debate on how the SP3 list was made. Brad Torgersen published a recommendation list in his blog. It looks transparent that he chose those works by whatever logic he saw fit and that it's nobody's business, since it's his list and his blog, except if you have means to prove that he purposefully recommended works he didn't like. <br /><br />It looks like Torgersen's attempt at reaching a more diverse list by inviting suggestions could only be commended. The only person ever demanded to prove that he arrived at his Hugo recommendation list by a democratic process (a loony demand, btw) has been Torgersen. The people going after Torgersen for this are, as a matter of fact, not asking anybody else, including themselves, whether they arrived at their recommendation lists by a democratic process.<br /><br />In your case, you fall for what I call the 'Valente gambit' after Catherynne Valente's pretension that Torgersen had claimed in his blog that the list had been arrived at by an 'open democratic' process. That is simply false. As you can check, what Torgersen claimed was that they had shaken up the Hugo awards and it had been done openly and democratically. There is no room to give those words Valente's spin that it was not the campainging and voting but the list-making which had been done 'openly and democratically'.<br /><br />In particular, since Torgersen did not ask anybody to adopt his list, how would it make sense to discuss whether his list was his own or a 'democratically made' one? This is a red herring if I ever saw one.<br /><br />Just my two cents anyway. Going back to my first sentence "I'm puzzled by some people's retroactive insistence on calling for a debate on how the SP3 list was made", the SP3 list was elaborated by a process that was to the SP3 voters' satisfaction. It is irrelevant whether other people declare their retroactive insatisfaction by never-heard-of standards other recommendation lists don't meet either.Pedro Teránhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17225528247201190873noreply@blogger.com